THE LIE THAT IS LIBERAL

"If you cannot convince a Fascist, acquaint his head with the pavement."
Leon Trotsky

The thread is most certainly locked. Locked means you can no longer post to the thread. I fail understand why you can't determine that... Seems like a simple thing.

So locked I can't post this.

He's talking about a different post. The "Future President Donald Trump" post is indeed locked. The only option is to report, you can no longer post a comment or anything to that thread.

There is clear case law that our gun rights include the right to carry guns when we go about in public. Note my signature line for a direct cite of this.

Hillary and Obama are advocating direct violation of the Second Amendment when they oppose allowing ordinary citizens to carry guns in public.


Our courts have longstanding rule that a law is only allowed to impact a Constitutional right if there is a very good reason for having that law.

There is not a good reason for banning pistol grips on guns. Therefore Hillary and Obama are advocating direct violation of the Second Amendment when they advocate bans on assault weapons.

There is not a good reason for banning someone from having a gun just because they are disabled and don't handle their own finances. Therefore Hillary and Obama are advocating direct violation of the Second Amendment when they advocate barring these people from being able to buy guns.

When they expand this to include even more absurd measures (say, barring people who wear glasses from owning guns), that too will be a violation of the Second Amendment.


Democratic judicial nominees have a longstanding history of ruling that obvious violations of the Second Amendment are allowable. When Hillary and Obama advocate nominating more judges like this, they are advocating that the government be allowed to blatantly violate our Constitutional rights.

Could you give me a link where I can read about Rex v. Dewhurst? What year was this? (Rex doesn't imply that this was back from when we actually had a king... does it?).

About the case itself? Not off hand. I think there used to be an article that briefly talked about the case, but that was years ago.

The year was 1820.

The UK still has a monarchy even today. The UK often refers to the government as the crown, or as representing the king or queen. This was a British case, so it followed their naming conventions.


I do have a fuller quote. I had to par the signature line down to the essentials because of a 250 character limit. Even after paring down the text I had to Americanize the spelling of "travelling" to gain a character, and also cut out some quotes and a period to get it to fit.

Rex v. Dewhurst (1820): "A man has a clear right to arms to protect himself in his house. A man has a clear right to protect himself when he is going singly or in a small party upon the road where he is travelling or going for the ordinary purposes of business. But I have no difficulties in saying you have no right to carry arms to a public meeting, if the number of arms which are so carried are calculated to produce terror and alarm."

If it is a British case, it doesn't seem like a very relevant point to support your interpretation of the US Constitution. In 1820 the US had been independent of England for decades.

You are appealing to case law. You should use examples that are relevant.

When the current monarch is a king, the Crown is called 'Rex', and 'Regina' when it's a queen.

The right in question was created by the UK and then transmitted to the US as part of English Common Law.

The US Constitution did not shape the right. It only took the already-existing right and protected it from infringement.

To look at the actual nature of the right, you have to look at what the UK created.



The right was created in 1689.



Rex v. Dewhurst is extremely relevant. It demonstrates that our rights include carrying guns in public, and not just keeping them at home.

Laws made in 1820 it weren't transmitted as part of English Common Law. That was after the US had diverged from the UK. They were separate countries (and not too happy with each other).

Ironically, the UK doesn't currently have the right to bare arms. They didn't consider that too much of a sacred right. And now their murder and crime rates are lower than ours.

Rights that were made in 1689 were transmitted to us. The court ruling from 1820 merely illustrates the nature of the long-standing right.



That's what makes our Constitution so wonderful. It ensures that the US will remain a bastion of freedom even when the Left seeks to abolish all freedom on earth.



The difference in murder rates has little to do with the presence or absence of guns.

Last I looked (which I admit was quite awhile ago), the UK had double our crime rate and triple our violent crime rate.

Other noteworthy court rulings, that don't cover carrying guns in public, but do clearly establish the existence of an individual right to have guns to defend your home (not much of a right to hunt however):

Rex v. Gardner (1739): "And they do not extend to prohibit a man from keeping a gun for his necessary defence, but only from making that forbidden use of it. And the word 'gun' being purposely omitted in this act, the defendant is not within the penalty."

Mallock v. Eastley (1744): "the mere having a gun was no offense within the game laws, for a man may keep a gun for the defence of his house and family."

Wingfield v. Stratford (1752): "It is not to be imagined, that it was the Intention of the Legislature, in making the 5 Ann.c.14 to disarm all the People of England. As Greyhounds, Setting Dogs ... are expressly mentioned in that Statute, it is never necessary to alledge, that any of these have been used for killing or destroying the Game; and the rather, as they can scarcely be kept for any other Purpose than to kill or destroy the Game. But as Guns are not expressly mentioned in that Statute, and as a Gun may be kept for the Defence of a Man's House, and for divers other lawful Purposes, it was necessary to alledge, in order to its being comprehended within the Meaning of the Words 'any other Engines to kill the Game', that the Gun had been used for killing the Game."

There were all kinds of laws in England from the 1300's on preventing the carrying of weapons.



http://engagedscholarship.csuohio.edu/cgi/viewcontent.cgi?article=1001&context=clevstlrev



I do have to admit. You gun nuts sure like to pull quotes out of context and try to use them to support your opinion even if they don't support it.

Rex v Gardner found that a gun wasn't an engine of destruction and wasn't covered under the game law. (the word "gun" being omitted in the act.)

[/quote]

Ok, let me try to address what I think are the main points in your post. The first point I will make is important (about the difference between opinion and fact)/ I will state my opinion and clearly label it as such. As a rule I try very hard not to make personal attacks or call names, I will hold myself to this standard throughout what I hope is a rational and respectful discussion.

1) There is a difference between subjective opinion and objective fact. If someone says "Hillary is a bigot", we should understand that this is a subjective opinion. There is no mathematical test on bigotry or common agreement across political lines on what behavior or words entail "bigotry".

Saying "several things that Hillary said contradicted the FBI report" is a statement of facts. It is important to keep the two separate. You can talk about facts and argue over the interpretation of facts. Arguing over subjective opinions isn't always a good use of time.

2) I don't really get your point about being able to "speak freely as long as your speech is correct". I don't see where anyone is being prevented from speaking freely either in public life, or here in Able2know. Media is not always fair... but the media are private organizations that for better or worse put their own spin on things without government interference. I think this is the best way to run an independent media, although it will always mean that people are upset when their side isn't represented fairly.

Am I missing something here?

3) I disagree with your view of the second Amendment. I certainly don't agree that the second amendment defends all the other rights... I feel the first Amendment is far more important. I suppose we will disagree on this basic point... I don't see how either of us will convince the other.

4) I disagree with your definition of what it means to be liberal. Given that it is conservatives who want the government to enforce laws restricting abortion, marriage and the hiring of immigrants... I don't think your definition fits at all.

I am a government moderate. I want the government to step in where it is the most efficient way for us to solve a problem. I want the government to stay out where individual rights are involved. There is sometimes a conflict between these two... which is why we have a political system to work these things out.

5) I have heard the argument that Obama has ruled by executive fiat. I have looked at the data and I don't believe there is any way to make the argument that Obama has used executive power more than other presidents.

This is a case where we can look at numbers of executive orders written by different presidents. Do you believe that this is a good way to resolve this issue? Or can you suggest an objective way to answer the question of whether Obama has used executive power more than other presidents (see George Bush or Ronald Reagan).

6) I don't see any evidence that our "blind acceptance of other cultures" will lead to terrorism. Quite the contrary, the countries that have been less accepting of other cultures have had greater problems with terrorism.

This has been an argument in the United States over the past 100 years. We have had fear of Jews, the Irish, Italians, Chinese, Japanese and now Muslims. Each of these groups have caused fear (particularly Jews, the Japanese and Italians). They were all incorporated into the US very successfully and we are a better country (in my opinion) for it.

The threat of terrorism remains extremely low in the US. Most years there are more deaths from dog bites than from terrorism (of any type). This is a true statistic that I can show you.

7) I have given you a bunch to chew on. I have given it to you, appealing to reason, without any name-calling, personal attacks. I invite you to try the same.

[/quote]

What I mean by speaking freely is the trend to suppress speech that is not politically correct or what the left believes to be correct. Right now it's Insidious but it does permeate the media and Society. The best places to see this is on college campuses. Here are two examples: a white guy and a black guy one liberal one conservative but both friends decide to do a radio talk show on campus. They posted Flyers with the sentence, "You can call in and talk about anything or even just to bitch about something."

They were all torn down...want to Guess what the offending word was and why? That's right...bitch...it was "sexist".

How about the guy on campus who was wearing the hat saying, "Make America Great Again" who had the hat ripped off because it was hate speech...so great now means hate.

I can go on with examples but I'm sure most people understand what I'm talking about. How far are we from laws that restrict speech? They have them in other countries that supposedly have a free Society. And that brings me to your question about the Second Amendment.

What happens if in violation of the First Amendment a law is enacted curtailing your free speech. What happens if the government refuses to acknowledge the public seeking redress. The government controls the military and the police. If the citizenry wants to rise up against a tyrannical government the only way they can do that is to bear arms. Population without arms are subjects or slaves but definitely not citizens.

As for immigrants who are allowed in this country they should be required to assimilate into our society to learn to speak English learn to adapt and accept our culture. They don't have to lose their culture but when their culture comes in direct conflict where are with our cultural norms laws and mores that's where the line should be drawn. There's a lot of sense in the old adage When in Rome do as the Romans. How would it be if they were enclaves here in the United States where Sharia law was the law... I don't see that far off from happening in places like Minnesota.

You talked of countries who are less tolerant of Cultures having more terrorism but that doesn't seem to be the case in Europe where they are extremely tolerant of other cultures and they have an abundance of terrorism.

As for the word bigotry there is a definite definition. A Bigot is someone who is intolerant of the opinions of others. In my experience the Left bolstered by the popular press are extremely more intolerant of those who do not share their worldview. This is evidenced by them automatically assigning the Right with the label racist prejudiced homophobe xenophobe islamophobe and ironically bigot.

To argue in defense of Obama's executive orders by saying that other presidents have done it too is specious. I don't have a problem with President issue an executive orders so long as they do not violate individual rights.

But the part that was so distasteful is for months Obama saying how it was unlawful it was for him to issue an executive order in regard to the illegal immigrants, how he wasn't a king, but in the end he did it so cavalierly.

1) I agree with you about free speech. Ripping Trump hats off of people's heads or tearing down flyers for having the word "bitch" are both examples of liberals taking away the free speech of conservatives.

I oppose this. You won't get an argument from me on either count.

I do think that it is acceptable for liberal to criticize Trump, even calling such a hat "racist" or the flyer "sexist". Calling something "racist" or "sexist" is part of free speech. But, of course anyone can engage and disagree with their own free speech.

You see a backlash against political correctness on college campuses. There are many liberals (myself included) who agree with this. I hate "safe spaces" at least as much as you do.

2) I disagree with you that free speech is in any danger in a legal sense. You ask "how long are we from laws that restrict speech?". My answer is that we aren't even going in that direction.

Free speech has been protected in the US. We allowed Nazis their free speech to march (to the dismay of many liberals)... ironically it as the ACLU that defended this free speech (even though the ACLU members are completely opposed to racism).

There may be cases on free speech that you or I feel were decided wrongly. But I see no instance where someone was stopped from expressing their opinion in public through speaking or writing (outside of a few protected areas like school personnel and separation of church and state... which I acknowledge may be a point we disagree on).

3) We will probably not be able to find any agreement on immigration. I am from a White, Protestant family. I have European ancestors who were in the Massachusetts Bay colony in the 1600's... my White American roots go back awfully far. Other than a small Jewish branch of the family, all of my ancestors that I know about are Northern European.

Yet I disagree with you. I am fluent in Spanish. I have my daughter in a bilingual school. I live in a place where on public transportation you are likely to hear a dozen different languages in any given morning. It is normal to see women with Muslim headscarves near where I live.

What you don't understand is This is the America that I want to live in. I am an American, I have every right to say this.

I am going to vote for laws, and elected officials that support immigration and multiculturalism. That's how democracy works.

4) I completely disagree with your idea that bearing arms should be used to protect you against a tyrannical American government. There are a few reasons for this.

First of all, we have done this before. We had a civil war where Americans took up arms against the American government. The American government won that war (although it was bloody and costly). The flag you now salute is the flag of the American government who put down the people who took up arms against it.

In my opinion, someone who take arms against the American government is a traitor (by the very definition of traitor). And, think about how effective this will be. We have a government that has Tanks, Drones and Stealth Bombers.

An armed insurrection would be an American version of ISIS... people with assault weapons hiding in buildings enforcing their own version of laws while superior military forces would be picking them off with bombs and drones. Accept an armed insurrection in America would be over much more quickly.

Better for us to work out our differences democratically. You vote for your candidate. I will vote for mine. The winner will take the White House and have the political levers available to push the country in the direction they want.

I want to respond to one other point.

There are 474 views of this thread. At least 6 or 7 of those views are mine. I am sure that well fewer than 100 people have actually viewed any of this thread. I think that your idea that this is an effective way to get your views known. is not logical.

Do this for fun, or do this for personal edification. If you think that you want to reach large numbers of people, you should be elsewhere.

Where did you look? Up your arse? That's a lie, and it's a very stupid lie that only very stupid people believe.

Our rate is 0.9 murders per 100,000 people, yours is 3.9. Ask a grownup to help you with the maths.

This is so typical of the fascists who support Trump, they know the facts don't support their nonsense so they just make stuff up, then they have the gall to call others liars. It's pathetic.

Forgot to post the link.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

Like it!