11
   

Guns are your friend

 
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 06:14 am

When a bank clerk steals $$ from the vault,
we have the means to incarcerate him for that theft.

When a politician, or a group thereof,
steals domestic political power, steals our freedom,
we shoud incarcerate them and punish them
more severely than someone who merely steals money.

I wish the Founders had put that into the Constitution.





David
0 Replies
 
Brandon9000
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 11:24 am
@Francis,
Francis wrote:

David wrote:
I defend the right of any citizen to ingest whatever he owns, including toxic substances.


I suppose you will stay impermeable to the concept that at some point an individual taking drugs will become a burden to the whole society.

You probably won't accept that the government, as an expression of the society's will, will try to protect your rights against your own will.

The right to stay in good health, for example..

The government has no right whatever to protect you against your own wishes, when your choices harm only yourself.

And don't talk to me about your choice harming others because taxes support public health care. You could equally well say that the government has the right to prohibit the freedom of unpopular causes to hold public rallies because the police guard costs the taxpayers money. But, then, the French don't have the right to free speech, do they? Ask Brigitte Bardot. The government has no right to protect your "right to stay in good health" over your screaming objections that you're being coerced.
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 11:53 am
@OmSigDAVID,
OmSigDAVID wrote:

David wrote:
].

The basis for unlimited tyranny is the notion that government
has jurisdiction to protect u from yourself -- to substitute its judgment for yours
as to what u shoud DO and what u shoud restrain yourself
from doing
, for your own good.
That includes a decision to end your Earthly life, if such be your choice.

The function of government is to defend your rights from violation
BY OTHERS, not from waiving them yourself.


While it is not illegal to commit suicide. --- (nobody to prosecute if it is successful.

It is apparently not illegal (in most states) to attempt suicide. The government does have the right to apprehend and submit the person attempting suicide for psychological testing and have the right to detain them for as long as is deemed necessary.
Francis
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 12:32 pm
Brandon wrote:
But, then, the French don't have the right to free speech, do they?

I think I have, but you probably now better than I..


and wrote:
Ask Brigitte Bardot.

I would not talk to her, even if you pay me a lot. I refused to shack hands with Le Pen.
However, you are free to be friends with modern Pol Pots..


and wrote:
The government has no right to protect your "right to stay in good health" over your screaming objections that you're being coerced.

I know. My comment was purely hypothetical..
0 Replies
 
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 12:44 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

OmSigDAVID wrote:

David wrote:

The basis for unlimited tyranny is the notion that government
has jurisdiction to protect u from yourself -- to substitute its judgment for yours
as to what u shoud DO and what u shoud restrain yourself
from doing
, for your own good.
That includes a decision to end your Earthly life, if such be your choice.

The function of government is to defend your rights from violation
BY OTHERS, not from waiving them yourself.




Quote:
It is apparently not illegal (in most states) to attempt suicide.
The government does have the right to apprehend
and submit the person attempting suicide for psychological testing
and have the right to detain them for as long as is deemed necessary.
I dispute that; according to u, where did that "right" originate ??





David
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 01:36 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
It originates from the laws of your country. You are a lawyer.....don't you know the law?
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 08:48 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

It originates from the laws of your country. You are a lawyer.....don't you know the law?
I dispute that any such "right" exists. "Affirmante non negante incumbit probatio."
Since YOU claim that such a "right" exists prove it.





David, Esq.
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 09:52 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
"A suicide attempt of any kind is treated as a psychiatric emergency by the police and other rescue personnel. Treatment in a hospital emergency room includes a complete psychiatric evaluation; a mental status examination; blood or urine tests if alcohol or drug abuse is suspected; and a detailed assessment of the patient's personal circumstances (occupation, living situation, family or friends nearby, etc.). The patient will be kept under observation while decisions are made about the need for hospitalization.

A person who has attempted suicide can be legally hospitalized against his or her will if he or she seems to be a danger to the self or others. The doctor will base decisions about hospitalization on the severity of the patient's depression; the availability of friends, relatives, or other social support; and the presence of other suicide risk factors, including a history of previous suicide attempts, substance abuse, and psychosis (loss of contact with reality, often marked by delusions and hallucinations). If the attempt is judged to be a nonlethal suicide gesture, the patient may be released after the psychiatric assessment is completed. According to CDC figures, 132,353 Americans were hospitalized in 2002 following suicide attempts while 116,639 were released following emergency room treatment."
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 10:28 pm
@Intrepid,

1. I see quotation marks, but I do not see the source of this quote.

2. However that may BE, u still have not proven, nor given ANY evidence of
the existence of any such "RIGHT".

Will u even TRY to prove that such a "right" exists ?





David
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 10:33 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
Here is one source. If you are interested, you can find others on your own.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Religious+and+Cultural+Views+on+Suicide
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Sun 8 Nov, 2009 11:37 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

Here is one source. If you are interested, you can find others on your own.

http://medical-dictionary.thefreedictionary.com/Legal+Religious+and+Cultural+Views+on+Suicide
Thank u; I enjoyed your information. It was interesting.
I was aware of some of it.

Insofar as it set forth:
"Definition
Suicide is defined as the intentional taking of one's own life. . . ."
I feel a need to challenge it. HOW is it possible for anyone alive
to TAKE his own life? To "take" means to receive possession.

If, indeed, he IS alive, then he POSSESSES his own life,
otherwise, he 'd be dead.

On the other hand, if he is dead,
then he has NO LIFE and therefore he cannot take it, IF it does not exist.
Q.E.D.: no one can take his own life.

In any event,
I have disputed that any government has any "right"
to interfere if anyone endeavors to commit suicide.

Nothing in the information that u provided
has indicated where any government has gotten any "right"
and THAT was and is the subject matter of my challenge.





David
OmSigDAVID
 
  0  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 12:07 am
@dyslexia,

What 's your favorite gun, Dys ?

(the metal kind)
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 04:31 am
@OmSigDAVID,

The trouble with guns is that we just don ' t have enuf OF them.

(By definition, we can never have enuf)





David
0 Replies
 
Intrepid
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 04:07 pm
@OmSigDAVID,
If you want to find out about the right. Test it yourself and see if the government has the right to take you in for phychological evaluation and detain you as long as they deem necessary That seems to be the only way that you will accept the reality.
OmSigDAVID
 
  1  
Reply Mon 9 Nov, 2009 07:55 pm
@Intrepid,
Intrepid wrote:

If you want to find out about the right.
Test it yourself and see if the government has the right
to take you in for phychological evaluation and detain you
as long as they deem necessary That seems to be the only way
that you will accept the reality.
That woud not work. U don 't get the concept.
U don 't understand the point.
For instance,
suppose that u decide to apply that test,
and as u r approaching your government to do so,
the Hell 's Angels grab u and carry u away to amuse themselves with u.
Further assume, for the hell of it, that some of them get their jollies
by subjecting u to psychological tests that appeal to them, or to their sense of humor,
and that thay keep u for "as long as they deem necessary", as u put it.

In these circumstances, will u "accept the reality" as u put it,
that the Hell 's Angels Motorcycle Club "has the RIGHT
to take you in for phychological evaluation and detain you
as long as they deem necessary" ?

Woud u say that the fact that thay DID it to u
proves that thay have THE RIGHT to do it to u ?


I woud not.
I 'd say that the Club had no right to do any of those things to Richard
and that it VIOLATED Richard's rights, by so doing.
However, I recognize your right to dissagree with me
and to take the opposite vu.





David
0 Replies
 
 

Related Topics

T'Pring is Dead - Discussion by Brandon9000
Another Calif. shooting spree: 4 dead - Discussion by Lustig Andrei
Friends don't let friends fat-talk - Discussion by hawkeye10
Before you criticize the media - Discussion by Robert Gentel
Fatal Baloon Accident - Discussion by 33export
The Day Ferguson Cops Were Caught in a Bloody Lie - Discussion by bobsal u1553115
Robin Williams is dead - Discussion by Butrflynet
 
Copyright © 2021 MadLab, LLC :: Terms of Service :: Privacy Policy :: Page generated in 0.04 seconds on 11/29/2021 at 09:28:19