Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal? Don't they cause havoc too? Isn't their design more suited to a well regulated militia than the streets?Does limited government mean doing away with consumer protection?
Not at all. In order to promote the general welfare, the federal government is exercising its responsibility by doing what it reasonably can to keep people from unknowingly ingesting or using harmful or potentially lethal products. The federal government, however, oversteps its constitutional responsibility and authority by dictating what foods or products the people will be allowed to use despite any warnings of harmfulness.If we find frying potatoes in lard is a health risk, should the government issue warnings about lard? If it is found that say marijuana poses no more a risk to health than bourbon, should the government continue to keep marijuana on a list of prohibited substances?
Does freedom and liberty mean the freedom to move your factory to Asia and then get a tax break for doing so?
Yes, A free people lives and works anywhere it wants to so long as the rights of others are not infringed. You have no right for me to provide you a job. As for tax policy, if it promotes the general welfare; i.e. generates opportunity, jobs, prosperity for Americans, it is the prerogative of free people. It must be available to all. If it is targeted at rewarding or benefitting the friends of those making tax policy, it is unethical, corrupting, and should be illegal.How can tax policy ever promote job creation while rewarding job outsourcing?
Yes. Equal rights means everybody gets the same shot to try. It does not mean that everybody starts out on the same footing or will achieve the same outcome.Does that mean that banning same sex marriage is an affront to civil liberties? Outcome in a marriage is not protected nor guaranteed. I don't understand why limiting the right to access contract law to some Americans is a good thing.
Corporations should be held accountable to the law. The law should ensure that Corporations (and everybody else) does not infringe on the unalienable, legal, constitutional, or civil rights of others. And then they should be left alone to do what they do. Whether government or corporations are trusted more is a non sequitur and irrelevent.Should corporations have a significant voice in the electoral process? Some on the right would actually have us believe that money equals speech. Since corporations have more money than the average individual, does that make the corporation more free to use its "speech" (money) to influence an outcome?
The First Amendment denies government the legal ability to reward or punish any individual or group for their religious views. Protection of unalienable rights prevent repression of any individual or group for anything legal.Should it be legal then to display Judeo-Christian iconography in a court of law? Isn't that promoting one religion over another?
Are property rights more precious than civil rights?
Yes, because if property rights are not inviolable, there are no civil rights.Chicken and the egg time here, foxy. If people aren't free and secure, why should their possessions matter?
If some speech is too dangerous to be expressed, are some guns too dangerous to be fired?
You'll have to be more specific here. The only speech that should ever be illegal is that which compromises or violates the unalienable rights of others. It should be illegal to fire guns indiscriminately at property or people as all are dangerous in such a case. But if you or I or those we love are being threatened, I don't care what kind of gun is used to protect our unalienable rights.
I -use- my rifles for several things - primarily several different forms of competition as well has personal defense, both of the home and away from same. The rifles in question are among the most effective platforms for each.But I am asking you....what is that reason you feel the need to own one or more guns with 30 round mags?
WHy wont you asnwer me? I want to learn. So I will ask again...what do you need a firearm with a 30 round+ mag that you can not accomplish with a semi automatic 10 rounder?
Its -impossible- to have a reasoned discussion about a subject that you know nothing about.As for the other stuff you said...becuase you do not know ICD-9 and CPT4 (assuming you dont) does that mean it is irrespoinsible for you to debate healthcare?
:shrug:
So are you saying that you are not qualified to participate in a healthcre debate? Or do you know ICD-9 and CPT4?
If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal? Don't they cause havoc too? Isn't their design more suited to a well regulated militia than the streets?Does limited government mean doing away with consumer protection?
Not at all. In order to promote the general welfare, the federal government is exercising its responsibility by doing what it reasonably can to keep people from unknowingly ingesting or using harmful or potentially lethal products. The federal government, however, oversteps its constitutional responsibility and authority by dictating what foods or products the people will be allowed to use despite any warnings of harmfulness.If we find frying potatoes in lard is a health risk, should the government issue warnings about lard? If it is found that say marijuana poses no more a risk to health than bourbon, should the government continue to keep marijuana on a list of prohibited substances?
Yes, A free people lives and works anywhere it wants to so long as the rights of others are not infringed. You have no right for me to provide you a job. As for tax policy, if it promotes the general welfare; i.e. generates opportunity, jobs, prosperity for Americans, it is the prerogative of free people. It must be available to all. If it is targeted at rewarding or benefitting the friends of those making tax policy, it is unethical, corrupting, and should be illegal.How can tax policy ever promote job creation while rewarding job outsourcing?
Yes. Equal rights means everybody gets the same shot to try. It does not mean that everybody starts out on the same footing or will achieve the same outcome.Does that mean that banning same sex marriage is an affront to civil liberties? Outcome in a marriage is not protected nor guaranteed. I don't understand why limiting the right to access contract law to some Americans is a good thing.
Corporations should be held accountable to the law. The law should ensure that Corporations (and everybody else) does not infringe on the unalienable, legal, constitutional, or civil rights of others. And then they should be left alone to do what they do. Whether government or corporations are trusted more is a non sequitur and irrelevent.Should corporations have a significant voice in the electoral process? Some on the right would actually have us believe that money equals speech. Since corporations have more money than the average individual, does that make the corporation more free to use its "speech" (money) to influence an outcome?
The First Amendment denies government the legal ability to reward or punish any individual or group for their religious views. Protection of unalienable rights prevent repression of any individual or group for anything legal.Should it be legal then to display Judeo-Christian iconography in a court of law? Isn't that promoting one religion over another?
Yes, because if property rights are not inviolable, there are no civil rights.Chicken and the egg time here, foxy. If people aren't free and secure, why should their possessions matter?
If some speech is too dangerous to be expressed, are some guns too dangerous to be fired?
You'll have to be more specific here. The only speech that should ever be illegal is that which compromises or violates the unalienable rights of others. It should be illegal to fire guns indiscriminately at property or people as all are dangerous in such a case. But if you or I or those we love are being threatened, I don't care what kind of gun is used to protect our unalienable rights.
You keep asking this question, and you keep ignoring the answer.If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal?
Well, I asked for an example of that vaunted Conservative logic and that's just what I got.What's the purpose of a high capacity clip? Do hunters use them? Do sportsmen? Are they practical for anything other than spraying the maximum amount of carnage at a crime scene? Can you illustrate the practicality of high capacity clips and please use that vaunted Conservative logic.
There need not be logic. If i want a gun with a 20 shot clip and I am a law abiding citizen, there is no reason to tell me I can't have one.
Just because there is less of a chance of being in a crowd being "sprayed with bullets" than there is of winning the Power Ball, you call for not letting anyone have a high capacity clip or a semi auto.
It's the same thinking that gets a teen age girl kicked out of school for having Advil in her purse because the school have a zero tolerance for drugs policy.
Care to answer the question? What's the virtue of a high capacity clip?
Quite an assumption.
If she had all the money the government confiscated in order to fund the Ponzi scam of SS she very well might have had millions more dollars.
But I guess we'll never know will we?
Ohh she only drew something like 10K from SS. Her big payoff was Medicare which had only been in existence for 6 years. She could not have paid in very much in 6 years
but one cannot draw SS if they do not use medicare.
So in order to get the money the government took from her, she had to go on medicare and if she is on medicare she can't purchase a full coverage health insurance policy and why would she?
Seems to me either way SS and medicare are designed to keep people dependent on the government.
When there is no choice, it's very difficult if not impossible to extrapolate outcomes.
I told you what I use them for, and why.WHy wont you asnwer me? I want to learn. So I will ask again...what do you need a firearm with a 30 round+ mag that you can not accomplish with a semi automatic 10 rounder?
I said exactly what I said.So are you saying that you are not qualified to participate in a healthcre debate? Or do you know ICD-9 and CPT4
the answer is nonsensical. Because you can?!? You do not need a gun with such devastating fire power in a civilian situation. Never. EVER!You keep asking this question, and you keep ignoring the answer.If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal?
Clearly, you have no interest in honestly discussing this (or any other) issue, chosng instead to remian an ignorant, bigoted, partisan troll.
I have been converted, years of common sense conservative and republican thought have won me over. I am saved. But I will need help as I transition a mind lost so long in liberalism. So please correct any lingering liberal ideas as I reform myself.
I now believe: Freedom is all you need and government should leave us alone. The Federal deficit started in 2009. Unions and teachers are the fault of our educational woes. Fannie and Freddie all by themselves caused the financial meltdown. The unemployed are not looking for jobs and are lazy to boot. Taxes are bad bad bad. Corporations are the best and really honest people. Global warming is a fraud made up by tree huggers. Our founding principles were perfect, Ms Bachmann showed me the way. Slavery was really kinda nice. Social Security, Medicare, and Healthcare are socialism. Minimum wage is too high and outsourcing is just great. Joe McCarthy was just one super guy. And Sarah, Glenn, and Michelle Bachmann are super patriots who really know history. Any criticism of American policy is anti American hate. Am I right so far?
So fellow conservatives, republicans, tea partyers, and righties, what have I missed? Help me see more of the light.
Ohh she only drew something like 10K from SS. Her big payoff was Medicare which had only been in existence for 6 years. She could not have paid in very much in 6 years
but one cannot draw SS if they do not use medicare.
So in order to get the money the government took from her, she had to go on medicare and if she is on medicare she can't purchase a full coverage health insurance policy and why would she?
Seems to me either way SS and medicare are designed to keep people dependent on the government.
When there is no choice, it's very difficult if not impossible to extrapolate outcomes.
That isn't quite true. You do not have to go on Medicare in order to draw Social Security. And you don't have to be drawing social security in order to get Medicare. And you have the right to refuse either.
The problem with both is like all entitlements, they have both become hundreds of percent more expensive than they were originally projected to ever be. And both have been dickered with by almost every Congress to cover more and more even as our work force shrinks in comparison to the number of retirees and the fact all such programs are bankrupt and cannot possibly be sustained as they are.
Those who put back a few bucks in savings or solid investments each paycheck will retire quite comfortably and any unused assets will pass on to their heirs. And they won't need any financial help from anybody.
Most of those who depend on Social Security alone will live in abject poverty even though they will exhaust everything they paid in within a few years and will from that point be supported by fellow citizens. Social Security money is not even banked to draw interest much less invested to grow it. You don't own your Social Security account. You can't borrow against it. You can't pass any unused portion on to your heirs. If you don't use it, it is swallowed up by the government. And, you have no legal right to it. Any Congress can end Social Security on any given day and you will be entitled to not one penny.
We can do better than that.
The Social Security Administration has issued rules in its Program Operations Manual System (POMS) that state that the only way to avoid the hospital and outpatient services provided by Medicare Part A is also to forgo Social Security benefits that have been earned through a lifetime of payroll taxes. Even worse, the government mandates that individuals who refuse such services must repay all Social Security benefits and Medicare benefits already collected.
I told you what I use them for, and why.WHy wont you asnwer me? I want to learn. So I will ask again...what do you need a firearm with a 30 round+ mag that you can not accomplish with a semi automatic 10 rounder?
If that's not good enough to help you with your understanding, then I cannot help you.
Note that in this country, we need not show a "need" when exercising our rights.
I said exactly what I said.So are you saying that you are not qualified to participate in a healthcre debate? Or do you know ICD-9 and CPT4
What I said is a truism, as a 'reasoned discussion' requires substantive facts to back ones' premise. If you cannot provide sibstantive facts to back your premise - or refute that offered by someone else, you cannot have a reasoned discussion.
You cannot offer substantive facts if you know nothing about the subject.
:shrug:
If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal?
If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal?
You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater without creating havoc. Yet you aren't recommending that people have their voice boxes removed and be rendered unable to speak lest they choose to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
You can own a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon however without harming a soul. And 99.9% of those who own them harm nobody with them.
Let's focus on the idiot who shouts FIRE in the theater and the guy who irresponsibly or maliciously uses any kind of weapon and stop THEM from creating havoc instead of presuming to limit law abiding, responsible citizens in the freedoms they have.
You arent paying attention - mostly because you dont want to have to address the answer.the answer is nonsensical. Because you can?!?
The answer is simple.And if yelling "FIRE!" in a theater is not protected speech, why is a semi automatic handgun firing 20 shots from the same magazine a protected firearm?
You have no need to vote for a DemocratYou do not need a gun with such devastating fire power in a civilian situation.
Read this very carefully:If I own an automobile that spewed noxious smoke and clouds of soot, had an exhaust system that did nothing to muffle the sound and had no bumpers or fenders yet I drove this car on the city streets, is it not the car that is making a mess? Is it not the car that poses the danger to the community?
If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal?
You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater without creating havoc. Yet you aren't recommending that people have their voice boxes removed and be rendered unable to speak lest they choose to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
You can own a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon however without harming a soul. And 99.9% of those who own them harm nobody with them.
Let's focus on the idiot who shouts FIRE in the theater and the guy who irresponsibly or maliciously uses any kind of weapon and stop THEM from creating havoc instead of presuming to limit law abiding, responsible citizens in the freedoms they have.
People need their voiceboxes to communicate.
WHy would one need a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon that a 10 round weapon can not do for them?
I have been trying to get an answer from M 14 but he seems to only want to generalize and talk about not "needing to give need when exercising his right"
If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal?
You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater without creating havoc. Yet you aren't recommending that people have their voice boxes removed and be rendered unable to speak lest they choose to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
You can own a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon however without harming a soul. And 99.9% of those who own them harm nobody with them.
Let's focus on the idiot who shouts FIRE in the theater and the guy who irresponsibly or maliciously uses any kind of weapon and stop THEM from creating havoc instead of presuming to limit law abiding, responsible citizens in the freedoms they have.
People need their voiceboxes to communicate.
WHy would one need a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon that a 10 round weapon can not do for them?
I have been trying to get an answer from M 14 but he seems to only want to generalize and talk about not "needing to give need when exercising his right"
So why do you keep asking me to?You do not need to show "need" when exercising your right...I agree.
No... I said exactly what I said.And as for my second question.....so you agree you are not qualified to have a debate...
You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater without creating havoc. Yet you aren't recommending that people have their voice boxes removed and be rendered unable to speak lest they choose to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
You can own a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon however without harming a soul. And 99.9% of those who own them harm nobody with them.
Let's focus on the idiot who shouts FIRE in the theater and the guy who irresponsibly or maliciously uses any kind of weapon and stop THEM from creating havoc instead of presuming to limit law abiding, responsible citizens in the freedoms they have.
People need their voiceboxes to communicate.
WHy would one need a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon that a 10 round weapon can not do for them?
I have been trying to get an answer from M 14 but he seems to only want to generalize and talk about not "needing to give need when exercising his right"
Why do you need a larynx when you can write or learn sign language?
This is exactly correct, and, as a result, will not receive an effective response.If shouting "FIRE!" in a theater is unlawful and not protected by the First amendment due to the havoc it causes, why should it be that high capacity magazines and semi or full automatic weapons be legal?
You cannot shout FIRE in a crowded theater without creating havoc. Yet you aren't recommending that people have their voice boxes removed and be rendered unable to speak lest they choose to shout FIRE in a crowded theater.
You can own a high capacity semi or fully automatic weapon however without harming a soul. And 99.9% of those who own them harm nobody with them.
