No, I believe he is stating that no person, decided or otherwise, gets to tell him the extent of his Rights so long as he's not violating the Rights of others, and as such, he doesn't have any moral obligation to convince anyone he deserves to Live Free.
Trump: 'Take the guns first, go through due process second'
- Thread starter SPM
- Start date
- Replies 223
- Views 12,435
No, I believe he is stating that no person, decided or otherwise, gets to tell him the extent of his Rights so long as he's not violating the Rights of others, and as such, he doesn't have any moral obligation to convince anyone he deserves to Live Free.
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
That's not what I am advocating...not at all.
While I do believe in listening to the fence-sitters, I also believe attempting to garner their support for the RTKBA should not be sugar-coated, watered down or adulterated in any way.
Yes, I am an absolutist. I believe most every piece of legislation we currently have regarding firearms is, by its very nature, unconstitutional and flies in the face of liberty. There are absolutely no provisions made in the BOR for .gov having the authority to regulate, restrict or prohibit the exercise of the RTKBA by free citizens. However, the amendment is clear that any interference by .gov is prohibited, hence the wording "shall not".
Last edited:
I agree with that; you just confused me quoting what I said about persuading undecided people.
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Good to go, then.
I do my best to persuade those straddling the line because eventually, time's gonna run out for the undecided.
You will either have made your decision, or someone with a muzzle to your back will make it for you, as they order you to get on the train....that sh*t is not going to happen to my wife or either one of my kids. If they are in that "line", it's because I am dead and not there to stop it.
And yes...completely serious.
I do my best to persuade those straddling the line because eventually, time's gonna run out for the undecided.
You will either have made your decision, or someone with a muzzle to your back will make it for you, as they order you to get on the train....that sh*t is not going to happen to my wife or either one of my kids. If they are in that "line", it's because I am dead and not there to stop it.
And yes...completely serious.
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Not trying to pick a fight here but I do find it extremely comical that someone with the screen name Molon Labe would make a statement like that.
You do understand the historical significance of that phrase right? When it was said and why it was said?
molonlabe
Member
Haha yes I do...and I have been to Thermopylae...studied the history of it long before it was turned into a product brand even.
But I'm not sure why you are puzzled.my comment was in support of the author's disappointment over the lack of attempt at understanding displayed at some (not all) on this topic.
I can only presume you think I was making some statement about the taking away of weapons which I was not.
But please clarify as I am one who wants to understand...
And please include your description of the history you asked me about...and no googling first.
But I'm not sure why you are puzzled.my comment was in support of the author's disappointment over the lack of attempt at understanding displayed at some (not all) on this topic.
I can only presume you think I was making some statement about the taking away of weapons which I was not.
But please clarify as I am one who wants to understand...
And please include your description of the history you asked me about...and no googling first.
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Well since I can’t google for spelling forgive spelling.
Xerxece demanded the Spartans surrender their weapons. When you dig further he was asking them to be reasonable. Throw them down now and I will let you have them back once you have shown your loyalty.
Leonidas had no intention of giving up his freedoms or those of his people. His 2 word response was one that spoke volumes. No I will not be reasonable. You want them come take them. There will be no further discussion.
That’s why I found it comical. Because my position is exactly that. I will not listen to reason. I have no intention of allowing my freedom to become a privledge.
Or in the words of one of this countries patriots “give me liberty or give me death”.
Or in the words of Bruce Campbel “the next one of you primates that even thinks about touching me.......boom”.
Or simply “come get some”.
Last edited:
Yes, and it likely saved a life, maybe two. I've know my EX-SIL's dad for many years and he is an irrational power-keg with a really hot temper.
molonlabe
Member
Well you were close.
Xerxes had already tried to buy off the Lakeidamonians (sp) by promising they would be "the first among his nations"...in other words his prized slaves.
So when it came time for the armies to meet Leonidas had already explained why they would not yield...but Xerxes was giving him another chance.
And in referencing my original quote I was pointing out that reasonable discussion is often lacking in this site. As others have stated if you don't understand someone you will never reach them or be understood yourself.
All he wanted was real discussion and I feel the same. If you believe something and think you deserve to be respected then respect others is all I say.
And I will say I am not making any comment about you or your beliefs.
In honesty I had this name long before it was popular back before I was zombie network on the other site. It is in reference to me being a history buff.
Last edited:
This site is oftentimes the only place to find reasonable discussion on the internet.
That said, if the basic premise of the discussion starts with violating the Rights and Liberties of people not guilty of any crime, then by definition that discussion is not reasonable.
Men are not reasoned out of their Freedom. They are forced out of it.
Force is not reason. It's violence.
And violence, unfortunately, cannot be reasoned with.......simply overwhelmed by unyielding fortitude.
Last edited:
molonlabe
Member
Unfortunately the original discussion had already drifted by the time I made my comment. And I do not feel many of the comments made were as much about the original topic as much as making that topic fit preconceived agendas.
I agree with all here that Trump is dead wrong here in violating due process. Not only is it wrong but blatantly illegal.
I agree with all here that Trump is dead wrong here in violating due process. Not only is it wrong but blatantly illegal.
Last edited:
As others have alluded to and outright said, reasonable discussion is not what I or we am / are going to give up because of a lunatic’s actions. That is, however, what the “left” is demanding and there is no discussion to be had because the answer is nothing. Now if we want to discuss solutions other than gun restrictions, I’m reasonably for it, thank you very much.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Fair enough on the history. I know it wasn’t their first meeting. But again that’s why I find the comment funny. Molon Labe. End of discussion. Now let’s discuss it.
As to the last bit I try very hard to have rational discussion as long as it is mutual. And as an owner and admin of the site I try to foster it.
But you can’t really have a rational discussion with anyone that doesn’t understand unalienable rights.
Last edited:
ChickenHawk
I'm a chicken hawk
2A Bourbon Hound 2024
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Member
Benefactor
Life Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
So much for due process. Again, just because you don’t like him they don’t get to do that. If he was not charged or convicted then they shouldn’t be taking anything from him. You can repeat the mantra of “it saved a life” as much as you want, but you echo the Democrats screeching about guns with that sentiment.
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Here’s the way I feel about someone trying to argue with me about the RTKABA.
To me it feels like a guy asking me if my wife and I swing and I say no. But they don’t want to take no for an answer. “How about just a dance”. No. “How about just a kiss”. What part of no didn’t you understand.
They can tell me all the good things about swinging and how much more evolved they are because marriage is a social construct and sex isn’t love.
But my answer is still going to be the same. Fuck off and don’t put your hands on my wife unless you want to die.
To me it feels like a guy asking me if my wife and I swing and I say no. But they don’t want to take no for an answer. “How about just a dance”. No. “How about just a kiss”. What part of no didn’t you understand.
They can tell me all the good things about swinging and how much more evolved they are because marriage is a social construct and sex isn’t love.
But my answer is still going to be the same. Fuck off and don’t put your hands on my wife unless you want to die.
There is probably little agreement on exactly what unalienable rights are, even on this forum.
It sounds so simple when the Declaration of Independence declares"... all Men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty, and the Pursuit of Happiness…" There you are - rights that cannot be taken away or denied.
But even the Founders quickly backtracked when the Fifth Amendment declares "No person shall ... be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law ..."
molonlabe
Member
Not a true comparison but I understand you feel strongly and think some things should just be accepted because you feel that strongly. Not being judgemental by saying that either.
Last edited:
But it is simple. In fact, you could call it what they called it - self evident.
If you believe all Men are Created Equal, then that's final.
If you believe all Men are endowed with certain unalienable Rights, which includes a Right to Life, then that's final.
If you do not believe such things, or believe it's merely idealistic rhetoric, then you believe some Men are born the betters of other Men, and by Right may rule over their lessers.
It's this very basic question that was rejected at the old North Bridge in Concord in 1775, the answer to which was clung to by starving and half naked men in the frigid winter at Valley Forge, that was the rally cry of backcountry Scotts who surrounded and annihilated their fellow countrymen atop Kings Mountain, stirred the blood of the men who fought like demons for their Liberty at Guilford Courthouse, and Turned the World Upside Down at Yorktown.
Either we are Equal and Free or we are slaves. There's no pragmatic argument for a human condition in between.
Last edited:
Dale Gribble
Can't starve us out; Can't make us run
Charter Member
Supporting Member
Multi-Factor Enabled
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
I thought it was a pretty fair comparison. Let me elaborate.
You can try to have a discussion with me about taking away my guns. You can say “how about we just raise the age limit”. No. “How about we just take away these guns.” What part of no didn’t you understand.
Then you can try to explain to me how much more evolved you are and tell me that the gun culture is archaic and so is the 2nd.
My answer will remain the same. Keep your hands off of my guns unless you want to die.
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
They followed that up with the bill of rights to make sure that everyone understood exactly what they are.
The federalist and the anti federalist papers along with correspondence from the time confirms all of this.
molonlabe
Member
Right to
So you are saying that ANY alteration to how you currently buy firearms is a violation of your "right to bear arms"? More or less....
molonlabe
Member
And they also said anyone but a white male did not get these rights....or am I mistaken?
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
Yes. And any and all laws that have already been passed that infringe upon that right are unconstitutional.
They were very specific in the way that it was worded although you have to know the meaning of the words at the time. Again correspondence from the time and the papers really help shed more light on the subject.
A well regulated (well armed and well trained. It did not mean regulated In the definition of controlled or belonging to a military unit) Militia a group of civilians willing and able to form up and take to arms) being necessary to the security of a free State, (exactly what I says. They feared federal government above all else) the right of the people (that’s wveyone of us) to keep and bear Arms, (own and carry about on our person as we see fit) shall not be infringed (harassed, harangued, muck about with in any way).
A right, by definition cannot have caveats or hurdles. Any time you try to change that you infringe upon that right.
Lemme re-read the 27 words.......
Yep.........."shall not be infringed." is a pretty clear answer.
Federalist No. 46 is pretty clear too.
As Madison said, when determining the scope of a law, one must read it in the spirit in which it was written, using the plain meaning of words, rather than what meaning can be tortured or squeezed from them.
Last edited:
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
No that’s not said at all. They did not make a differentiation between white brown or black slaves.
And again if you read the papers and correspondence you will find that most of the signers were conflicted on the notion of slavery.
You are correct that a slave, no matter their color, were not protected under the constitution. Right or wrong, viewing it through the lense of the time or not it’s really a moot point.
Citizens were protected and those rights guaranteed. Slaves were not considered citizens. Again right it or wrong, once they became citizens they were also supposed to be protected. Granted it took some time.
Last edited:
molonlabe
Member
molonlabe
Member
Women and minorities were citizens that were legally discriminated against we're they not?
Chdamn
Dungeon Master
Staff member
2A Bourbon Hound OG
Charter Life Member
Benefactor
Multi-Factor Enabled
And if they were does that somehow change the meaning of the words?
And again different time. Women were not considered at that time to be on the same level as men. The same was true around the world.
Still is true in Muslim countries and others as well.
Quit trying to conflate two topics that are not dependent on each other.
The Founders obviously did not believe in the Divine Right of Kings. But the Founders just as clearly believed that governments could take away so-called unalienable rights through due process of law because they wrote it into the Constitution and Bill of Rights and the constitutions and laws of the original states.
Which is why if you look for legality to determine Morality, you're going to have a bad time.
Slavery was (and is, in some places, still) legal.
The Holocaust was legal.
What is legal and what is just are not the same thing.
molonlabe
Member
That is my point. A lot of fancy words were used that did not match what they truly did.