What has happened to our country?

clax · Jan 30, 2013

I know the answer, it lies in the people.

We have been told that to defend what we believe in until our deaths is terrorism, and that other opinions are just as valid.

First, it is absolutely the definition of the word patriot if you sacrifice time money and blood for your nation (people). The next statement I make will scare some folks.

"I love my nation and its people, I will absolutely eliminate any threat to her with any necessary force". Our nation's most threatening enemy is within, mixed up among our people even thinking they are our people.

Second, not all opinions are valid. If it goes against our constitution it is not valid. You have the right to have an opinion, you do not have the right to have a valid opinion or to have your opinion validated. It doesn't matter who the holder of that opinion is, our which office they hold, the constitution takes into consideration nothing of the titles of nobility any would be emperor chooses to bestow.

There comes a time when the patriots must get our hands dirty.

myp · Jan 30, 2013

One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist and vice-versa.

clax · Jan 30, 2013

myp said:
One man's freedom fighter is another's terrorist and vice-versa.

Ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly how the enemy speaks. Thank you for making yourself known

myp · Jan 30, 2013

clax said:
Ladies and gentlemen, this is exactly how the enemy speaks. Thank you for making yourself known

Lol, what enemy and what are you talking about? It is a general statement. There are people in the world who saw Osama as a freedom fighter. The founding fathers were freedom fighters for us and terrorists to King George. Not exactly a crazy statement I made.

clax · Jan 30, 2013

myp said:
Lol, what enemy and what are you talking about? It is a general statement. There are people in the world who saw Osama as a freedom fighter. The founding fathers were freedom fighters for us and terrorists to King George. Not exactly a crazy statement I made.

You are an enemy to me (a patriot) you are for the theft of my guns against my rights by your nobles.

tecoyah · Jan 30, 2013

clax said:
You are an enemy to me (a patriot) you are for the theft of my guns against my rights by your nobles.

If possible, please try to lower the level of anger when posting.

clax · Jan 30, 2013

tecoyah said:
If possible, please try to lower the level of anger when posting.

What anger, I am all smiles

myp · Jan 30, 2013

clax said:
You are an enemy to me (a patriot) you are for the theft of my guns against my rights by your nobles.

So be it. I don't see everything in a good v. evil narrative. I see you have good intentions. I have good intentions too. We disagree. I don't have a problem with that- certainly not enough to call you my enemy.

clax · Jan 30, 2013

myp said:
So be it. I don't see everything in a good v. evil narrative. I see you have good intentions. I have good intentions too. We disagree. I don't have a problem with that- certainly not enough to call you my enemy.

That is the difference, you support stripping of freedoms, such as owning a certain type of fire arm, I support freedoms such as the right to defend myself, by proxy I support your rights to do so also, and even to disagree with my right to do so, but not the stripping of such right regardless of the nobility title of the person doing such.

myp · Jan 30, 2013

clax said:
That is the difference, you support stripping of freedoms, such as owning a certain type of fire arm, I support freedoms such as the right to defend myself, by proxy I support your rights to do so also, and even to disagree with my right to do so, but not the stripping of such right regardless of the nobility title of the person doing such.

Problem is rights are man-made. And if we are talking about the 2nd amendment it is arguable whether it supports the right to bear all arms.

clax · Jan 30, 2013

myp said:
Problem is rights are man-made. And if we are talking about the 2nd amendment it is arguable whether it supports the right to bear all arms.

Yip, they are, and protected by the beneficiaries of such rights, not nobles

tecoyah · Feb 3, 2013

clax said:
Yip, they are, and protected by the beneficiaries of such rights, not nobles

As there are no "Nobles" per se in this country, you are correct in that.
There are however, systems in place created by our Constitution, Judiciary, and the checks and balance aspect of the republic that protect said rights.
Though it is true the beneficiaries are amongst those who make up this system of government, they could not do so without the system(s).

Trying to pretend some imagined militia, or unorganized group somehow manages to defend our constitution seems to me rather silly.

clax · Feb 3, 2013

tecoyah said:
As there are no "Nobles" per se in this country, you are correct in that.
There are however, systems in place created by our Constitution, Judiciary, and the checks and balance aspect of the republic that protect said rights.
Though it is true the beneficiaries are amongst those who make up this system of government, they could not do so without the system(s).

Trying to pretend some imagined militia, or unorganized group somehow manages to defend our constitution seems to me rather silly.

Yeah, I agree that thus imaginary militia of which you speak is silly. I don't know where you cooked up that idea.

I said the people defend the rights. Now if you are suggesting that the citizens of the United states are imaginary or some militia our am unorganized group then I must say that is quite silly.

tecoyah · Feb 3, 2013

clax said:
Yeah, I agree that thus imaginary militia of which you speak is silly. I don't know where you cooked up that idea.

I said the people defend the rights. Now if you are suggesting that the citizens of the United states are imaginary or some militia our am unorganized group then I must say that is quite silly.

I would ask then...in detail, just how the people defend said rights?

clax · Feb 3, 2013

tecoyah said:
I would ask then...in detail, just how the people defend said rights?

Any means necessary.

tecoyah · Feb 3, 2013

clax said:
Any means necessary.

Okay...so no detail.

Basically, allowing for the Mob Mentality. So how do you address the loss of my right not to have crazy people with guns shooting the cops sent in to quell the Mob?

clax · Feb 3, 2013

tecoyah said:
Okay...so no detail.

Basically, allowing for the Mob Mentality. So how do you address the loss of my right not to have crazy people with guns shooting the cops sent in to quell the Mob?

No such right exists.

The only reason laws are unforced is because people allow them to be. When a law is unjustit must be disobeyed.

tecoyah · Feb 3, 2013

clax said:
No such right exists.

The only reason laws are unforced is because people allow them to be. When a law is unjustit must be disobeyed.

There is our disagreement quite clearly stated.

You feel it is acceptable to make up your own laws, or "Decide" which ones apply to you (particularly strange considering your occupation and position).

I understand the Anarchy likely to result from this mentality, and see the absolute need within a large society for law and order. This simply cannot be accomplished by an individualist approach, as the obvious result is chaos.

"injustice", is an individual perception.

I see what you propose as unjust, if only because I do not wish to see those charged with maintaining order come under attack when doing what we ask them to do.

myp · Feb 3, 2013

clax said:
No such right exists.

The only reason laws are unforced is because people allow them to be. When a law is unjustit must be disobeyed.

Unjust is opinion. Rights are made by humans- different humans think there are different rights, but there is no inherent right just because of that. Your continual insistence that the rights you think should be rights are rights and that anyone's else's things that they think are rights are not has no basis in truth. It is a simple case of you thinking your opinion is right in a matter that is not fact-based and in which opinions are just opinions.

tecoyah · Feb 3, 2013

myp said:
Unjust is opinion. Rights are made by humans- different humans think there are different rights, but there is no inherent right just because of that. Your continual insistence that the rights you think should be rights are rights and that anyone's else's things that they think are rights are not has no basis in truth. It is a simple case of you thinking your opinion is right in a matter that is not fact-based and in which opinions are just opinions.

He said it better than me, but this is the simple truth (in my opinion).

Thing is...the entire reason we have developed the system we have, is to arbitate these opinions and develop something referred to as law.

We then enforce these laws and punish those that break them...regardless of personal opinion.

I personally do not agree with more than a few laws...but I obey them due to my understanding of societal stability. Plus...I would prefer not to become someones biatch in jail.

What has happened to our country?

Similar threads