Political Forums  

Go Back   Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Gun Control Gun Control Forum - For topics and discussions about gun laws, gun policies, and gun rights


Thanks Tree53Thanks
Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old May 15th, 2017, 07:42 AM   #61
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Whilst I don't quite agree with what you contend about Democracy being 'mob rule'; I do understand your perspective. However, to say that representative government is 'antipodal' to democracy is surely stretching things a little. The US is a constitutional democracy (I won't lecture, I know you know this). The point is though, that it is a democracy; Syria, Iraq, USSR, Nazi Germany were not. So I would be grateful, given the US is a democracy (all be it one in which there are 'checks and balances') if you could explain why there is a need for citizens to protect themselves from the government that they democratically elected?
inalienable rights
Thanks from webguy4
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:04 AM   #62
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
inalienable rights
Excuse me?

How is this answering my question?
Thanks from Twisted Sister
deGanis is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:27 AM   #63
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Excuse me?

How is this answering my question?
I took a shot at Jimmyb who is the constitutional expert on this forum. Jimmyb used unalienable when he should have used inalienable. I did not take a shot at you.
Thanks from deGanis
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:33 AM   #64
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by Panther View Post
Not good examples in arguing against gun ownership.
Do you really think widespread handgun/long gun ownership would have overcome any of them? Saddam and Assad in particular since there were lots of guns around while they were doing their thing.
RNG is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:36 AM   #65
RNG
Senior Member
 
RNG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Location: LA LA Land North
Posts: 24,974
Quote:
Originally Posted by webguy4 View Post
Athens, Tennessee, 1949. Democratic government stealing an election was stopped by armed private citizens.
Against the local government. Want to guess what would have happen if the feds had got involved?
RNG is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:51 AM   #66
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
I took a shot at Jimmyb who is the constitutional expert on this forum. Jimmyb used unalienable when he should have used inalienable. I did not take a shot at you.
Unalienable and unalienable have the same meaning. "In" is a negative prefix derived from Latin and French, and "un" is a negative prefix derived from Anglican/English, thus the rights in the Bill of Rights are negative rights.

Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence used inalienable:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from....
Inalienable was changed to unalienable by a copyist. Rights are either negative (unalienable or inalienable) or positive (alienable).

All the founding era dictionaries defined unalienable and inalienable as the same, even Blackstone and Black's Law Dictionary.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:54 AM   #67
Senior Member
 
Twisted Sister's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2015
Location: Brown Township, Ohio
Posts: 10,037
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
Unalienable and unalienable have the same meaning. "In" is a negative prefix derived from Latin and French, and "un" is a negative prefix derived from Anglican/English, thus the rights in the Bill of Rights are negative rights.

Jefferson's original draft of the Declaration of Independence used inalienable:
We hold these truths to be sacred & undeniable; that all men are created equal & independant, that from that equal creation they derive rights inherent & inalienable, among which are the preservation of life, & liberty, & the pursuit of happiness; that to secure these ends, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from....
Inalienable was changed to unalienable by a copyist. Rights are either negative (unalienable or inalienable) or positive (alienable).

All the founding era dictionaries defined unalienable and inalienable as the same, even Blackstone and Black's Law Dictionary.
Inalienable is in the Constitution. Show me one place where unalienable is used. : )
Twisted Sister is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 08:56 AM   #68
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by deGanis View Post
Whilst I don't quite agree with what you contend about Democracy being 'mob rule'; I do understand your perspective. However, to say that representative government is 'antipodal' to democracy is surely stretching things a little. The US is a constitutional democracy (I won't lecture, I know you know this). The point is though, that it is a democracy; Syria, Iraq, USSR, Nazi Germany were not. So I would be grateful, given the US is a democracy (all be it one in which there are 'checks and balances') if you could explain why there is a need for citizens to protect themselves from the government that they democratically elected?

The US Constitution is not a constitutional democracy. If anyone ever wanted to make the historical case that the US is a constitutional democracy, the Supreme Court put an end to that concept.

There are no democratically elected federal offices, so I cannot answer the citizens protecting themselves.
Thanks from Twisted Sister
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 09:00 AM   #69
Commie Exposer
 
Jimmyb's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2012
Location: Republic of Texas
Posts: 38,826
Quote:
Originally Posted by Twisted Sister View Post
Inalienable is in the Constitution. Show me one place where unalienable is used. : )
Actually neither one are in the Constitution or Bill of Rights.
Jimmyb is offline  
Old May 15th, 2017, 09:16 AM   #70
Member
 
Join Date: May 2017
Location: Logres
Posts: 86
Quote:
Originally Posted by Jimmyb View Post
The US Constitution is not a constitutional democracy. If anyone ever wanted to make the historical case that the US is a constitutional democracy, the Supreme Court put an end to that concept.

There are no democratically elected federal offices, so I cannot answer the citizens protecting themselves.
I am sorry Jimmy, I feel as if I am in a parallel universe at the moment. In the US folks vote for their representatives- correct? Those representatives then exercise the constitutional checks and balances to exercise power. That, I think, is what a constitutional democracy is (??) If I am correct, why do citizens need guns to defend themselves against their lawfully elected government? I am not exactly pleased with the current administration but I will, as they say 'suck it up buttercup' - I don't see any need to start shooting things
deGanis is offline  
Reply

  Defending The Truth Political Forum > Political Issues > Gun Control

Tags
genuine, question



Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Question for IT TNVolunteer73 Current Events 8 November 1st, 2014 06:44 PM


Facebook Twitter RSS Feed



Copyright © 2005-2013 Defending The Truth. All rights reserved.