The Firing Line Forums

Go Back   The Firing Line Forums > The Conference Center > General Discussion Forum

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old January 5, 2015, 11:13 AM   #126
44 AMP
Staff
 
Join Date: March 11, 2006
Location: Upper US
Posts: 28,677
I would disagree with using the word "grant" re: govt and our rights. The whole concept of natural or unalienable rights is that the rights exist independent of government (or anyone else's) permission or authority.

It is a fine distinction, but these discussions are places where fine distinctions should be made, because they do matter.

Government can neither take away, or give you natural rights. Government can suppress, deny, restrict or empower us exercising a right, so it appears that govt grants the right, but they don't. Of course, governments don't mind us thinking they grant us our right. They don't mind that one bit.

A couple hundred years ago, what many thought was in the best interests of the publick good was the greatest freedom for the individual. Particularly when it came to arms.

Today, many people apparently think differently.
__________________
All else being equal (and it almost never is) bigger bullets tend to work better.
44 AMP is offline  
Old January 5, 2015, 12:04 PM   #127
carguychris
Senior Member
 
Join Date: October 20, 2007
Location: Richardson, TX
Posts: 7,523
Quote:
Originally Posted by ronl
Politicians stay in office so long that they lose touch with the electorate. More than ever, the need for term limits is evident. Another trend is the accumulation of massive amounts of money by mostly progressive entities, such as Bill Gates, George Soros, Michael Bloomberg, etc. These individuals seem intent on shoving their vision of the future down our throats. Such individuals have control of a large portion of the media, and therefore structure the debate in ways that favor their ideals.
I don't mean to start an extended thread hijack, but I find this statement to be seriously self-contradictory.

In order to get enough name recognition to win a major political campaign when media exposure is crucial and political contributions are becoming increasingly unregulated, a person generally needs at least one of three things:
  1. Pre-existing fame
  2. Personal wealth
  3. Contributions from external benefactor(s)
Set aside #1 and you wind up with two basic categories of people who have a realistic chance of winning political office starting from scratch:
  • The wealthy
  • Those who have pledged fealty to wealthy benefactors
If "they" control the money, and "they" control the media, does it not logically follow that "they" WANT term limits in order to more easily manipulate who is in office?

Keep in mind that I-594 in WA was BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the wealthy. This factor is becoming increasingly relevant in ALL SORTS of elections.
__________________
"Smokey, this is not 'Nam. This is bowling. There are rules... MARK IT ZERO!!" - Walter Sobchak

Last edited by carguychris; January 5, 2015 at 05:11 PM. Reason: reword
carguychris is offline  
Old January 5, 2015, 12:13 PM   #128
buck460XVR
Senior Member
 
Join Date: December 28, 2006
Posts: 4,341
Quote:
I would disagree with using the word "grant" re: govt and our rights. The whole concept of natural or unalienable rights is that the rights exist independent of government (or anyone else's) permission or authority.

It is a fine distinction, but these discussions are places where fine distinctions should be made, because they do matter.
Then it must also come down to whether the rights are God given or birth rights, especially in the case of people who do not believe in a divine creator.

My point is, regardless of the semantics you want to use, folks that live under any form of government, have their rights regulated......period. That is never going to change, regardless of how much folks preach otherwise on internet forums. We see that in the 2nd Amendment already. The amount and type of regulation comes from those in power. We as citizens of the U.S. control those in power for the most part by voting for those that represent our concerns. We are fortunate as this is not how it works in many other societies. One needs to be realistic......Regardless of who you think has granted us those rights, our government will always control those rights. The day they don't, we will have no government. The day we have no government, odds are, gun control will be the least of our worries.
buck460XVR is offline  
Old January 5, 2015, 01:43 PM   #129
Tom Servo
Staff
 
Join Date: September 27, 2008
Location: Foothills of the Appalachians
Posts: 13,057
Quote:
Keep in mind that I-594 in WA was BOUGHT AND PAID FOR by the wealthy. This factor is becoming increasingly relevant in ALL SORTS of elections.
Keep pointing that out, too. The people who pushed for I-594 are the ones who most frequently gripe about our elections being bought by the "1%."
__________________
Sometimes it’s nice not to destroy the world for a change.
--Randall Munroe
Tom Servo is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off

Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 09:01 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site and contents, including all posts, Copyright © 1998-2021 S.W.A.T. Magazine
Copyright Complaints: Please direct DMCA Takedown Notices to the registered agent: thefiringline.com
Page generated in 0.04142 seconds with 8 queries