1. GvG Improvements Update

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    First up, we wanted to thank you once again for taking the time to continue to contribute your feedback on the upcoming changes to Forge of Empires, especially in relation to Guild Battlegrounds.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
  2. Cultural Settlement - Feudal Japan

    Arising from the Sengoku period of Feudal Japan, the clan of Akechi Mitsuhide has requested your help.
    As the Daimyo of his village, it is your task to lead the Feudal Japan to prosperity! Detailed information here!
    Dismiss Notice
  3. Changelog 1.157

    Hello Queens and Kings,
    The update to 1.157 will take place on Wed, July 24, 2019. There will be a short period of downtime during the update, we apologize for any inconvenience caused during this time.
    For the detailed description of the upcoming changes, please see the details here.
    Dismiss Notice
Dismiss Notice

Which do you support most and why? (Select 1 or more)

Discussion in 'Debate Hall' started by Lucifer1904, Feb 14, 2017.

Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.
  1. Elfwand

    Elfwand New Member

    Joined:
    Mar 26, 2018
    not in theo ld testament. there's enough times there god instructs people how to fight or even takes a hand himself. I don't think this line or reasoning works either way I just wanted to pointo ut the fallicy of briniging religoun in- it pretty much can be folded which ever way you like and is best avoided in this contexted before we're reduced to sniping chapter and verse at one another.
     
  2. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    You think we need to help some of these folks understand what “inalienable rights” means?

    I mean I would love to see them explain how regulating a militia could possibly have anything to do with a right the government can neither give you ... nor take away.

    There is a direct correlation ...

    If they identify a well regulated militia
    And the People’s right to bear arms shall not be infringed
    In regards to an inalienable right
    Which means the government does not give it to you
    And cannot take it away from you ...

    It in turn identifies the specific purpose of the said militia.
    Which is to assist in protecting your inalienable right against nefarious nit-wits with the intent to try and deprive you from it.

    It’s amusing because because they grasp for straws in simple concepts trying to use a regulated militia to do exactly what the Founding Father intended to use a militia to help guard against.

    .
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
    Graviton likes this.
  3. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    The term is in the Declaration of Independence, and it is "unalienable" rights, not inalienable. The only ones specifically listed even there are "life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". The term is not used in the Constitution. So, no, I don't think you need to help anyone understand any of this.
     
    BlackSand the Sly likes this.
  4. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    You should tell that to the person that brought it into the topic. Here's a hint: It wasn't me.
     
  5. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    So you think our rights come from the government?
    You think the government gives us the right to defend ourselves?

    .
     
  6. DreadfulCadillac

    DreadfulCadillac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    im geussing the people give ourselves that right
    personally i dont like the goverment
    when i grow up i ill live in a veyr republican state like Texas or florida
    (or a differntt country)
     
    RazorbackPirate likes this.
  7. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Whatever country a person lives in, the rights they have there are those allowed by the government. That's just a basic reality of human life. You should go to a country that has a truly oppressive regime in control and see how far your talk of "inalienable rights" will get you.
    "Security of a free state". Meaning the militia's specific purpose was to protect a free state. Had nothing to do with personal protection. Had nothing to do with a hedge against the federal government. Had to do with each state having a force to use to protect its borders against invasion. They also were to be "well regulated". By the individual state governments. Not just groups of citizens who decide to get together out in the woods and form a personal army. Well regulated militia under the authority of the individual state. For the security of that state. And in case of national need, to assist the federal armed forces (which were not nearly as bloated back then as they are now.) If you look around, there are no longer militias like that. Only the National Guard vaguely resembles what a militia was in those times. You really should understand what you're talking about before spouting off about it.
     
  8. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    A lot of people like Texas and Florida because they don’t have a State income tax. They still have property taxes and sales tax.

    .
     
    DreadfulCadillac likes this.
  9. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    Militias were State or community based and not the Federal Government, which is why they were not governed by the Federal Government in the Constitution.

    Well outside of the Tenth Amendement where it indicates that what the Federal Government hasn’t been granted the enumerated power to govern, the States or People reserve the right to ... But we already covered that.

    As far as a right to self defense, the right to bear arms simply indicates the the ability to access the most effective means by which to defend yourself. The right to defend yourself doesn’t come from the Government.

    A Free State is not a State in which the Government attempts to remove the Freedoms of the people (especially if the freedom you are threatening to limit is their ability to defend themselves from your actions).

    You can keep parsing the language with nefarious intent, but it’s not going to change what it means. In a Free State we reserve the right to defend ourselves if necessary (and we are not asking for your agreement or permission).

    .
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
    Graviton likes this.
  10. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    I'm not the one trying to make language say something it doesn't.
     
  11. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    You cannot make it say something it doesn’t nor can you make something it says mean something it doesn’t ... :)

    You are the one attempting to interpret the meaning of what it says in order to make it mean something it never has. Really, it’s not the first time people have wanted to rob others of their freedoms, and certainly not the first time they wanted to ensure their success by disarming the People.

    You cannot wiggle out of it ... Your attempts are nothing new. There is a reason people with your desires have consistently failed in doing so.

    You also fail to realize that you will never disarm everyone, because even the government or powers that be will never disarm themselves, nor make it impossible for me to be armed.

    We currently have laws that outlaw fully automatic firearms, but I hope you are not silly enough to think that means there are not citizens in this country that have legally owned fully automatic firearms.

    All you really accomplish in attempts to disarm the general public, is restrict the rights of the common man while further empowering the people with the wherewithal and resources necessary to circumvent your foolishness.

    This is probably the result of a lack in world experience, and the ability to understand that if you choose to be armed, negotiate the means to be armed with the authorities present, you can be no matter where you are on this planet. And on the other hand, if you are a criminal, you don’t care what the law says anyway.

    That would explain the reason you fail to understand that I am not negotiating my freedoms with you, because you have nothing to negotiate with. There is nothing you or your precious government can offer in return, that either of you can ensure you can provide ... As well as the fact that attempting to negotiate with an empty promise doesn’t establish any good faith.

    .
     
    Last edited: May 8, 2019
    Graviton and RazorbackPirate like this.
  12. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    The fact that you keep using that word makes me think you're just regurgitating stuff from other sources rather than actually thinking and responding to the points I make. The reason it make me think that is that I have never, in any form, mentioned negotiating anything. If I were in Congress, working on legislation on this issue, then I would be negotiating to some extent. But an average citizen, having a conversation about the issue? Where exactly do you see negotiating in that? Does that mean there is something I, or anyone else can offer you to change your position, rather than simply explaining where you're wrong and hoping you see the light? Because if there is something someone can offer you to give up your position on an issue, you're no better than the politicians who vote according to who lines their pockets. I know there's nothing anyone can offer me to change my position other than a logical explanation why I'm wrong, that takes into account the entire Second Amendment and not just one phrase.
     
  13. BlackSand the Sly

    BlackSand the Sly Active Member

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2018
    I think the point you continue to miss is centered on your inability to grasp the reality of your desires.There is a reason I own an Assault Rifle, and that I am allowed to exercise that right.

    You are not the first to come along in the last nearly two and a half centuries that has tried to infringe upon my liberties to do so ... And if you are silly enough to think that is because they lacked your self-assessed expert ability to interpret the US Constitution ... That’s not only a tad bit narcissistic, but steeped in the delusional expectations your empty promises are worth anything.

    You want something you don’t have (the ability to infringe upon my liberties) ... While I have what I want (which in a Free State helps protect me from your nefarious wants) ... And to assume that is an accident, or something someone hasn’t tried to do already would be foolish.

    Edit: In references to negotiations ...

    We are negotiating because you want something you don’t have and require me to give up what I have to get what you want ... The reality of that explains why my response is, “Go Pound Sand” ... :)

    Let break it down in easier terms for you ... You cannot say that you don’t intend to infringe upon my existing rights, if you have to pass a fricken law to do it ... Silly. You could try and argue that I don’t have a right to them, but that’s a lie because I do, and I already have them ... That didn’t change just because you don’t like them.

    .
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2019
    Graviton and RazorbackPirate like this.
  14. DreadfulCadillac

    DreadfulCadillac Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 11, 2018
    dont they also have the right to start shooting tresspasers after you have fired a warning shot and they havnt started clearing out?
     
  15. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    Well said. The right to keep and bear arms so you can organize a citizens' militia to overthrow your own oppressive government, cannot be dependent on the oppressive government you want to overthrow organizing the citizen's militia.
     
  16. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    I've never heard of that, but what they do have are what is called a 'Stand your Ground' laws.

    A 'Stand your Ground' law establishes a right by which a person may defend one's self or others (right of self-defense) against threats or perceived threats, even to the point of applying lethal force, regardless of whether safely retreating from the situation might have been possible. Such a law typically states that an individual has no duty to retreat from any place where they have a lawful right to be (though this varies from state to state) and that they may use any level of force if they reasonably believe the threat rises to the level of being an imminent and immediate threat of serious bodily harm and/or death.

    Without such a law in place, the state will usually require you, by law, to run away and not engage. Leaving you and those around you without protection, even if you had the ability to defend yourself and them. If someone after the fact determines, "You could have run over there." You will likely face numerous sets of charges for defending your life and the lives of those around you.
    Any idea what each of those 'truly oppressive regimes in control' have in common? Ever wonder which unalienable right those citizens' in each of those 'truly oppressive regimes in control' have in common? You guessed it, the DON'T have the right to keep and bear arms in order to organize citizens militias to overthrow their 'truly oppressive regimes in control'.

    Seems you missed the part about it being a right of the People. The people are not a State. In United States v. Cruikshank (1876), the Supreme Court ruled that, "The right to bear arms is not granted by the Constitution; neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The Second Amendments means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress, and has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the National Government."

    So, it seems that you are incorrect and the Supreme Court has said so. The right is not derived from the constitution, as has been said, it is unalienable. What's unalienable cannot be taken away or denied, they are absolute rights, or natural rights. That is the very definition of the word, unalienable. That you would divorce the Declaration of Independence from the Constitution so you can split hairs well. Just another example adding weight to my current premise.

    Seems you're entire premise that the Constitution grants the right to keep and bear arms, so can be interpreted to also limit the right to keep and bear arms, or that somehow the right to keep and bear arms is dependent on a militia, existence of a militia, or thought of the existence of a militia is entirely false.

    Or are you dismissing Supreme Court decisions on a whim now too, like you did with the thoughts and words of the Founding Fathers?
     
    Last edited by a moderator: May 9, 2019
    DreadfulCadillac likes this.
  17. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Seems you missed the part where I don't have discussions with conspiracy theory nutcases.

    @BlackSand the Sly, in reading back over your posts, I belatedly realize that you don't care what the Constitution says, or what laws Congress may pass, nor what decisions the Supreme Court might make, nor even what laws/decisions your "Free State" might make. Your base argument doesn't really involve any of those entities, it is simply, "I have this right because I say so." And in light of this revelation, I'll leave you and Razorback to your delusions.
     
    Last edited: May 9, 2019
    Praetorius and bridgetmcb like this.
  18. RazorbackPirate

    RazorbackPirate Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    May 29, 2018
    @BlackSand the Sly, does not say she has that right because she says so, she says she has that right because she is a natural born free human being and God says so. God made us free, you seek to enslave. You not not an honest, decent, God fearing man.

    Works for me. Why wast my time trying to talk sense into a dishonest, evil man. Honest men don't dismiss the voices of other men simply because they have a differing opinion and good men don't seek to take away the right of free people to remain free.

    Just to be clear, not a conspiracy theory nutcase, just a man who reads the book of the man who's Gospel I proclaim. Do you mean to tell me the teacher has never read the book?

    Now as He sat on the Mount of Olives, the disciples came to Him privately, saying, “Tell us, when will these things be? And what will be the sign of Your coming, and of the end of the age?”

    And Jesus answered and said to them: “Take heed that no one deceives you. For many will come in My name, saying, ‘I am the Christ,’ and will deceive many. And you will hear of wars and rumors of wars. See that you are not troubled; for all these things must come to pass, but the end is not yet. Nation will rise against nation, and kingdom against kingdom. And there will be famines, pestilences, and earthquakes in various places. All these are the beginning of sorrows.

    “Then they will deliver you up to persecution and kill you, and you will be hated by all nations for My name’s sake. And then many will be offended, will betray one another, and will hate one another. "

    "Then many false prophets will rise up and deceive many. And because lawlessness will abound, the love of many will grow cold. But he who endures to the end shall be saved." Matthew 24:3-13

    Paul also warned us specifically about the likes of you, didn't he?

    "For the time will come when they will not endure sound doctrine, but according to their own desires, because they have itching ears, they will heap up for themselves teachers; and they will turn their ears away from the truth, and be turned aside to fables." 2 Timothy 4:3

    It might be good to remember Jesus' specific warning about the Judgement.

    “Not everyone who says to Me, ‘Lord, Lord,’ shall enter the kingdom of heaven, but he who does the will of My Father in heaven. Many will say to Me in that day, ‘Lord, Lord, have we not prophesied in Your name, cast out demons in Your name, and done many wonders in Your name?’ then I will declare to them, ‘I never knew you; depart from Me, you who practice lawlessness!’ Matthew 7:21-23
     
  19. Stephen Longshanks

    Stephen Longshanks Forum Moderator

    Joined:
    May 8, 2015
    Why are you trying to instill fear into me? Don't you know that perfect love drives out fear, and that fear is a tool of the devil? Or did your education skip over that part?
     
  20. Praetorius

    Praetorius Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jun 22, 2016
    Worlds:
    Fel Dranghyr, Parkog
    [​IMG]

    [​IMG]

    It is difficult to win an argument with an intelligent person, but it is impossible to win an argument with a moron, Stephen.
     

Top
Thread Status:
Not open for further replies.