Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Nonsense. I went through that ages ago with you. The whole idea of the Enlightenment , Locke and the Founders was to make that very distinction.

---

Tom,let me briefly go through it yet again.

Natural rights are those right that are inalienable. They are the rights man naturally acquired while living in a society that was prior to there being any institutional arrangements. Locke called this living in a state of nature.In other words, prior to there being any sort of social contract.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Tuttyd

Tom,let me briefly go through it yet again.

Natural rights are those right that are inalienable. They are the rights man naturally acquired while living in a society that was prior to there being any institutional arrangements. Locke called this living in a state of nature.In other words, prior to there being any sort of social contract.

---

Locke's theories are all well and good . But I also strongly believe in Aquinas's view that natural law is an aspect of divine providence.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by tomder55

Locke's theories are all well and good . But I also strongly believe in Aquinas's view that natural law is an aspect of divine providence.

---

That's fine, but Aquinas wasn't an Enlightenment thinker. Locke, Madison, Jefferson et al. were

They may have been enlightened thinkers but practical reality limited them in there time giving such a narrow view of there on world. Those enlightened thinkers of the day still held that rights and freedom only belonged to those they bestowed it on and set limits, BY LAW, to exclude specific others from having full protection under the law.

Their enlightenment only went as far as their own self interests. That hardly follows a divine path, and indeed was less than the others that were not so divine. Their thinking was more entitlement than enlightenment and served their own self interests. They in effect didn't give up a damn thing for the greater good except guarantee their own power and influence. Obviously that was their intention in the first place.

Tal ,the enlightenment thinkers said that all rights are endowed by a creator and are universal. Locke ,Jefferson were not acting on anything that could be defined as self interest ...instead .. Jefferson and all the founders put it all on the line for their beliefs and their country . Had they lost ,the hangman await.

At the time the only endowment of rights by the creator only extended to landed white guys. That's not self serving?

Few of us escape our time and place. Jefferson knew slavery was wrong ,but also knew there was no hope of uniting the nation if slavery was abolished in the states during his times ..(and yes he lacked the moral character and courage to do what he knew was right regarding his own ). He also predicted that slavery would be abolished within a generation because the youth of America had had "sucked in the principles of liberty as if it were their mother's milk."

I'll say it again .... all the founders risked their lives ,liberty ,and fortunes in the Revolution. They could've easily sat it out as many Americans of wealth did . (and not all the founders were landed rich guys either .... Samuel Adams had to borrow clothing to attend the Continental Congress.

More proof the private citizen needs MORE guns...not fewer.

This just screams civil rights violation...............




https://www.askmehelpdesk.com/curren...ml#post3644171.

Springdale Arkansas Police Recruitment Video Shows Cops in Military-Style Ghillie Suits

Posted on April 25, 2014 by Paul Joseph Watson
Disturbing sign of militarization of domestic law enforcement

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=smqZ1...layer_embedded
A recruitment video for the Springdale Police Department in Arkansas shows cops dressed in military-style ghillie suits armed with sniper rifles emerging out of the ground.
This suit is only usually worn by hunters and soldiers in order to evade detection when targeting prey or a dangerous enemy.
Just who is the Springdale Police Department planning on hunting? This is yet another disturbing sign of the increasing militarization of domestic law enforcement.

*********************
Paul Joseph Watson is the editor and writer for Infowars.com and Prison Planet.com. He is the author of Order Out Of Chaos. Watson is also a host for Infowars Nightly News.
http://www.dcclothesline.com/wp-cont...-2-600x450.jpg

I am not slamming your sacred heroes just recognizing that they had to deal with the situation as it was. As do we now have to deal with the situation as it is. And right now fringe loony's, be they Christian, Muslims, or atheists are the enemy of a free people everywhere, and dangerous with a loaded gun in their hands.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

be they Christian, Muslims, or atheists are the enemy of a free people everywhere, and dangerous with a loaded gun in their hands.

---

I don't recall seeing many Christians flying planeloads of people into buildings. The last atheist I recall with anything loaded other than their mouth was Guy Fawkes. At least not self-professed. Jihadis, yes, are a danger because they preach barbarism.

Quote:

---

I am not slamming your sacred heroes

---

Sure sounds like it to me .

Quote:

---

Their thinking was more entitlement than enlightenment and served their own self interests. They in effect didn't give up a damn thing for the greater good except guarantee their own power and influence. Obviously that was their intention in the first place.

---

Just pointing out the start of the truly entitled class of this country. They still exist and even have the temerity to vilify others if they dare to intrude on their exclusive domain. More to the subject, Georgia didn't close any gun show loopholes. Nor provide for detection or enforcement.

Georgia sees what's happening over in Arkansas with the Jack booted thugs parading as Police officers that think they are training for a Guerilla war that hasn't happened... but perhaps the Emporer intends to not leave his post and that's why all the ammunition purchaces and why the so-called "protectors" are dressing and training for some foreign war they aren't ever going to participate in... unless they are planning on having one against American citizens.

I think the governor and the representatives of Georgia are more interested in kissing the boots of the NRA than actually protecting it's citizens. It is election season, and he was lousy during the snow storm.

RealClearPolitics - Election 2014 - Georgia Governor - Deal vs. Carter

2nd amendment stuff plays well in Georgia.

THe NRA actually does have the PEOPLE in their interests..and unlike people like George Soros and those on his payrol...the NRA gets its money from the real Americans, the gun grabbers are not true Americans. They first want to disarm the population, then take away the rest of the rights when they are certain nobody car fight back.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by smoothy

They first want to disarm the population, then take away the rest of the rights when they are certain nobody car fight back.

---

That's how it's always worked in the past.

Please elaborate Cats, because the English and Australians don't have issues with not having guns, and most other countries aren't worried about the black helicopters or dictators either. Why do we have such fear of another Hitler? So far we have only had a problem with isolationists, and criminals so to be frank the fear of your own government is a ginned up excuse not to obey the law.

Hi tal you make a good point, only in the US does this paranoia exist. Admittantly your society does appear to be more violent than ours but the use of firearms is as likely to get you dead as protect you. If guns protected you, you would not have so many gun related deaths each year. I get the point that in the past you had a very dangerous environment, perhaps more dangerous than ours and the need existed, but now you see the dangers as even greater because the restraint has gone.

What we have demonstrated successfully is you don't need an armed population to have a peacfull population and you don't need an armed population for a peaceful handover of power after elections, and you don't need an armed population to have a low body count

Gee... I seem to remember my parents generation having to bail out BOTH those countries. Both of which actually never had any constitutional right to arm themselves for self protection.


Incidentally the UK crime rates are way too high for them to be prancing around claiming to be "safe". Lack of a gun isn't a deterant to criminals to commit crimes....they use knoves, clubs, explosives, battery acid....anything else that can cause bodily harm.

I hardly think Austrailia is crime free either.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by talaniman

Please elaborate Cats, because the English and Australians don't have issues with not having guns, and most other countries aren't worried about the black helicopters or dictators either. Why do we have such fear of another Hitler? So far we have only had a problem with isolationists, and criminals so to be frank the fear of your own government is a ginned up excuse not to obey the law.

---

Uganda, Myanmar, China, Cuba, the Soviet Union, and yes, Nazi Germany: all disarmed their citizenry prior to the genocides in those countries. Mexico is now run by drug lords, thanks to a disarmed populace.
Gun Facts and Quotes