nope, that's called democracy, now that's certainly a tool used to help insure people's freedom...but it's not freedom itself. You misunderstand as usual. And furthermore, that is the definition just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't valid.
freedom: 1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
That isn't the freedom Jefferson was talking about in the DOI. Just read it and you will see that.
"Time has eroded the credibility of all these people who oppose concealed carry,"
No, it hasn't.
How hasn't it? Has MN turned into the Wild West as predicted? We're 50,000+ permits issued? Are people running rampant in the streets shooting each other with their concealed handguns?
Come on Rick, tell us the truth.
"and who predicted all these horror stories that never came true,"
I'm glad it wasn't horrible.
So am I. Now that all the anti-gun arguments have been proven invalid, why are you still against CC?
"We have a year of this law under our belts. Everybody has pretty much behaved, so there is nothing to complain about."
If you think unconstitutional legislation is nothing to complain about. I think giving into fear is always unfortunate.
If this is unconstitutional, so is a lot of other legislation.
You care to pay us back your college tuition Rick? I'm sure the bill that funded that was under similiar circumstances, therefore it also was unconstitutional.
Can we overturn road construction funding now that we've decided such legislation is "unconstitutional"?
Can we overturn education spending?
Welfare funding?
Shit, even the Democrat Attorney General Mike Hatch thinks this judge is full of shit.
BTW: Have you looked into this judge? Nice ethical guy.
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How is any law restricting my right to keep and bear arms constitutional? Shouldn't matter if I am a felon or not, have a permit or not, registered gun or not, etc.
So you want to restrict me and not allow me to protect myself and my family, not to mention the rest of law abiding society, because you don't think I should give into my supposed fear?
Crabs, Perhaps you should go back and read what I posted to you. I agree that it's silly to bring a gun to a church. That's not the issue. The issue is the judge throwing out the will of the people ending a law that was voted on by our elected legislators. It was brought about by a religious group. Something you've railed against. Nobody would get hurt from C.C As long as it's not misused. If you don't want to carry you don't have to but if you wish to excercize your 2nd ammendment rights then you should feel free to do so.
you don't even know the difference between the idea of freedom and the idea of democracy, bodine
I know that the US had democracy while the slaves were prevented from participating in it. So I really don't know the difference? Maybe you should try thinking on the matter for a while.
Rick wrote: Because I think it's giving in to fear.
Maybe you should think about voting for Bush then becuase it appears that by voting for Kerry you are giving into your fears about Bush and the Republican party.
I think Democrats have better ideas than Republicans
Especially Kerry because he comes down on all sides of an issue and therefore can't be wrong! But seriously, what specific idea does Kerry have that is better? Let the UN have a veto over our national security?
The question was "what specific idea does Kerry have that is better?" There is nothing loaded about it.
I simply provided an example of one of his ideas. You are free to provide one of your own. The question still stands: does he even have one better idea?
Supports the Brady Bill & Mandatory Background Checks – John Kerry strongly supported passage of the Brady bill which required mandatory waiting periods and background checks to ensure criminals and the mentally disabled did not receive illegal access to guns. Kerry actively worked for passage of the Brady legislation in the Senate in 1993. The Brady law “has prevented almost 700,000 felons, fugitives and mentally ill people from purchasing guns.” Kerry’s strong support for gun safety won him the 1990 endorsement of Sarah Brady, wife of former Reagan press secretary James Brady--who was severely injured in the 1981 assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan and for whom the Brady bill is named. [Senate Roll Call vote, 1993 #394; New York Times, 12/9/90; ABC News, 20/20 3/22/02]
 The right to own a firearm carries serious responsibilities, which your organization and our administration, well understand. The NRA has long led the way in promoting gun safety, and in advocating the toughest penalties for those who commit crimes with firearms. This belief in personal responsibility has guided our criminal justice policy these last three years. As a result, since President Bush took office, federal prosecutions of crimes committed with guns have increased 68 percent – sending – -- sending the clearest possible message to any person who would threaten or harm another innocent person with a gun. As the President has said, “If you use a gun illegally, you will do hard time.”
Our administration is helping to make families and communities safer through measures like Project Safe Neighborhoods, which helps local officials to deter, prosecute, and prevent crimes committed with guns. Our law enforcement policies are proving effective, and they are based on an unmistakable principle shared by President Bush and all of you: The most effective way to prevent crimes committed with firearms is to go after the criminals themselves, not the law-abiding gun owners of America.Â
I know that the US had democracy while the slaves were prevented from participating in it. So I really don't know the difference? Maybe you should try thinking on the matter for a while.
that goes to show that democracy isn't freedom, dispite your attempts to define them as the same thing.
Freedom, as it is meant in the DOI and as implemented in the Constitution, is the ability to participate in the political process
that isn't freedom, that is democracy.
you don't undestand that they are two separate things.
when the declaration spoke of unalienable rights...it wasn't talking about the right to participate in the political process...it was talking about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...freedom.
These documents then went on to lay out a method that involves democracy in order to help insure that these rights are not hindered. One idea helps the other, but they aren't the same thing.
Freedom, as it is meant in the DOI and as implemented in the Constitution, is the ability to participate in the political process
that isn't freedom, that is democracy.
Let me spell it out for you. Our politcal process can be called a democracy, as it is often. The ability to particpate in democracy is freedom. Get it? Two different things.
when the declaration spoke of unalienable rights...it wasn't talking about the right to participate in the political process...it was talking about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...freedom.
You need to keep reading:
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,--That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
The ability to participate is freedom. It means you will not always have your way. It means that there will be compromise.
The ability to particpate in democracy is freedom.
no...freedom is what allowsyou to participate in democracy...it's not freedom itself.
it's entirely possible that someone could be in prisoned and still participate in the political process.
that's not usually the case, but since freedom isn't democracy itself, it's possible.
if all freedom means to you is the ability to participate in the political process, then you don't really grasp the concept of what freedom is all about.
if all freedom means to you is the ability to participate in the political process, then you don't really grasp the concept of what freedom is all about.
I understand freedom in reality. You have some abstract idea that applies to nothing and is totally useless other than in some literary work or political treatise.
you are so quick to want to limit what your freedom is in order to limit what it is for other. What youwant is freedom from the democratic process, crabs. That ain't freedom
truly unAmerican That explains you very well. You only think my views are unAmerican because you don't understand what American means.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin How does this apply to anything I have mentioned. It is a simple platitude.
The US was a democracy but the slaves couldn't participate although they were governed by it.
what does this have to do with freedom? Uh duh slavery is the absence of freedom. They were governed by a government they could not participate in.
your idea of democracy can deny someone's freedom. How can it be freedom and deny freedom at the same time? Damn it, crabs, are you really this damn stupid? You are the only one saying they are the same! damn, damn damn, damn stupid.
a democracy can remove your right to have a gun. If you have a right to participate in that decision it is freedom.
What you want is freedom from the democratic process, crabs. That ain't freedom
no, I needthe democratic process to protect my inalienable right to be a free man.
that's what this....
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
is all about....and when it fails to secure these rights, I can abolish it....you can't abolish the inalienable rights though...that's what inalienable means.
no, I needthe democratic process to protect my inalienable right to be a free man. You speak platitude after platitude after platitude. your words are meaningless.
that's what this....
That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.
is all about....and when it fails to secure these rights, I can abolish it....you can't abolish the inalienable rights though...that's what inalienable means.
All you have are platitudes. Words without meaning. That is your life.Â
Yes and the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" has absolutley no meaning outside of "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"
nope, that's called democracy, now that's certainly a tool used to help insure people's freedom...but it's not freedom itself. You misunderstand as usual. And furthermore, that is the definition just becuase you don't like it doesn't mean it isn't valid.
freedom: 1 : the quality or state of being free: as a : the absence of necessity, coercion, or constraint in choice or action b : liberation from slavery or restraint or from the power of another
That isn't the freedom Jefferson was talking about in the DOI. Just read it and you will see that.
Naw. Do you really need it explained to you?: that if you are goblin hunting, you don't want to scare off the prey.
so, concealed carry is a huntinglaw!
you don't even know the difference between the idea of freedom and the idea of democracy, bodine
As long as Long John Silver stands for John Kerry is a Lifelong Hunter & Will Defend Hunting Rights, that's the argument to run.
No, it hasn't.
How hasn't it? Has MN turned into the Wild West as predicted? We're 50,000+ permits issued? Are people running rampant in the streets shooting each other with their concealed handguns?
Come on Rick, tell us the truth.
I'm glad it wasn't horrible.
So am I. Now that all the anti-gun arguments have been proven invalid, why are you still against CC?
If you think unconstitutional legislation is nothing to complain about. I think giving into fear is always unfortunate.
If this is unconstitutional, so is a lot of other legislation.
You care to pay us back your college tuition Rick? I'm sure the bill that funded that was under similiar circumstances, therefore it also was unconstitutional.
Can we overturn road construction funding now that we've decided such legislation is "unconstitutional"?
Can we overturn education spending?
Welfare funding?
Shit, even the Democrat Attorney General Mike Hatch thinks this judge is full of shit.
BTW: Have you looked into this judge? Nice ethical guy.
Amendment II
A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
How is any law restricting my right to keep and bear arms constitutional? Shouldn't matter if I am a felon or not, have a permit or not, registered gun or not, etc.
"So am I. Now that all the anti-gun arguments have been proven invalid, why are you still against CC?"
Because I think it's giving in to fear.
So you want to restrict me and not allow me to protect myself and my family, not to mention the rest of law abiding society, because you don't think I should give into my supposed fear?
Apply for a permit. There wasn't anything stopping you before.
Receiving a permit was arbitrary under the old rules.
You can't arbitrarily grant rights to people.
Or can you?
Have a good day. I'll check in tonight.
Crabs, Perhaps you should go back and read what I posted to you. I agree that it's silly to bring a gun to a church. That's not the issue. The issue is the judge throwing out the will of the people ending a law that was voted on by our elected legislators. It was brought about by a religious group. Something you've railed against. Nobody would get hurt from C.C As long as it's not misused. If you don't want to carry you don't have to but if you wish to excercize your 2nd ammendment rights then you should feel free to do so.
you don't even know the difference between the idea of freedom and the idea of democracy, bodine
I know that the US had democracy while the slaves were prevented from participating in it. So I really don't know the difference? Maybe you should try thinking on the matter for a while.
Rick wrote: Because I think it's giving in to fear.
Maybe you should think about voting for Bush then becuase it appears that by voting for Kerry you are giving into your fears about Bush and the Republican party.
No, I'm voting for Kerry because I'm a Democrat.
and you fear Bush and the Republicans. But you should have a better reason than Kerry is a democrat. Do you?
I think Democrats have better ideas than Republicans.
I think Democrats have better ideas than Republicans
Especially Kerry because he comes down on all sides of an issue and therefore can't be wrong! But seriously, what specific idea does Kerry have that is better? Let the UN have a veto over our national security?
I reject your premise and ask you loaded questions to someone else.
The question was "what specific idea does Kerry have that is better?" There is nothing loaded about it.
I simply provided an example of one of his ideas. You are free to provide one of your own. The question still stands: does he even have one better idea?
I have neither the time nor the inclination to go round and round with you.
the typical response of liberals- just don't answer the question. it works because they don't have any answers.
Thanks for confirming why I'm not interested.
thanks for confirming my view of liberals
Supports the Brady Bill & Mandatory Background Checks – John Kerry strongly supported passage of the Brady bill which required mandatory waiting periods and background checks to ensure criminals and the mentally disabled did not receive illegal access to guns. Kerry actively worked for passage of the Brady legislation in the Senate in 1993. The Brady law “has prevented almost 700,000 felons, fugitives and mentally ill people from purchasing guns.” Kerry’s strong support for gun safety won him the 1990 endorsement of Sarah Brady, wife of former Reagan press secretary James Brady--who was severely injured in the 1981 assassination attempt of Ronald Reagan and for whom the Brady bill is named. [Senate Roll Call vote, 1993 #394; New York Times, 12/9/90; ABC News, 20/20 3/22/02]
gun control? Bush does it better:
 The right to own a firearm carries serious responsibilities, which your organization and our administration, well understand. The NRA has long led the way in promoting gun safety, and in advocating the toughest penalties for those who commit crimes with firearms. This belief in personal responsibility has guided our criminal justice policy these last three years. As a result, since President Bush took office, federal prosecutions of crimes committed with guns have increased 68 percent – sending – -- sending the clearest possible message to any person who would threaten or harm another innocent person with a gun. As the President has said, “If you use a gun illegally, you will do hard time.”
Our administration is helping to make families and communities safer through measures like Project Safe Neighborhoods, which helps local officials to deter, prosecute, and prevent crimes committed with guns. Our law enforcement policies are proving effective, and they are based on an unmistakable principle shared by President Bush and all of you: The most effective way to prevent crimes committed with firearms is to go after the criminals themselves, not the law-abiding gun owners of America.Â
http://www.georgewbush.com/News/Read.aspx?ID=2461
that goes to show that democracy isn't freedom, dispite your attempts to define them as the same thing.
dispite your attempts to define them as the same thing.
My attempts? I never made such a claim. You acused me of making that claim. This is what
you wrote:
I denied your accusation.
bodine...you wrote...
that isn't freedom, that is democracy.
you don't undestand that they are two separate things.
when the declaration spoke of unalienable rights...it wasn't talking about the right to participate in the political process...it was talking about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...freedom.
These documents then went on to lay out a method that involves democracy in order to help insure that these rights are not hindered. One idea helps the other, but they aren't the same thing.
that isn't freedom, that is democracy.
Let me spell it out for you. Our politcal process can be called a democracy, as it is often. The ability to particpate in democracy is freedom. Get it? Two different things.
when the declaration spoke of unalienable rights...it wasn't talking about the right to participate in the political process...it was talking about the right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness...freedom.
You need to keep reading:
The ability to participate is freedom. It means you will not always have your way. It means that there will be compromise.
no...freedom is what allowsyou to participate in democracy...it's not freedom itself.
it's entirely possible that someone could be in prisoned and still participate in the political process.
that's not usually the case, but since freedom isn't democracy itself, it's possible.
if all freedom means to you is the ability to participate in the political process, then you don't really grasp the concept of what freedom is all about.
no...freedom is what allowsyou to participate in democracy...it's not freedom itself.
For people that must live in society and not on some remote island like a hermit the only freedom is the ability to particpate in the government.
exactly...democracy is used to secure freedom.
a prison isn't a criminal...it's something used to help secure a criminal.
likewise, a democracy isn't freedom, it's something used to help securefreedom.
bullshit.
I can live in this society and not participate in it's government. I'm free to do that if I choose....at least I can if it's a truly free society.
if all freedom means to you is the ability to participate in the political process, then you don't really grasp the concept of what freedom is all about.
I understand freedom in reality. You have some abstract idea that applies to nothing and is totally useless other than in some literary work or political treatise.
you can't even tell it apart from democracy
I can live in this society and not participate in it's government. I'm free to do that if I choose.
That doesn't matter. You can participate or not participate, but you can particpate. That's freddomand that was what was the heart of the DOI.
you can't even tell it apart from democracy
I gave you a prime example. The US was a democracy but the slaves couldn't participate although they were governed by it.
you are so quick to want to limit what your freedom is in order to limit what it is for other.
truly unAmerican
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin
what does this have to do with freedom?
it's only further proof that democracy isn't freedom.
your idea of democracy can deny someone's freedom. How can it be freedom and deny freedom at the same time?
a democracy can remove your right to have a gun.
and you call it freedom?
you are so quick to want to limit what your freedom is in order to limit what it is for other. What youwant is freedom from the democratic process, crabs. That ain't freedom
truly unAmerican That explains you very well. You only think my views are unAmerican because you don't understand what American means.
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - Ben Franklin How does this apply to anything I have mentioned. It is a simple platitude.
what does this have to do with freedom? Uh duh slavery is the absence of freedom. They were governed by a government they could not participate in.
your idea of democracy can deny someone's freedom. How can it be freedom and deny freedom at the same time? Damn it, crabs, are you really this damn stupid? You are the only one saying they are the same! damn, damn damn, damn stupid.
a democracy can remove your right to have a gun. If you have a right to participate in that decision it is freedom.
no, I needthe democratic process to protect my inalienable right to be a free man.
that's what this....
is all about....and when it fails to secure these rights, I can abolish it....you can't abolish the inalienable rights though...that's what inalienable means.
so now a democracy taking away your right to bear arms is "freedom"?
hell, you must think a totalitarian government is reallyfreedom
no, I needthe democratic process to protect my inalienable right to be a free man. You speak platitude after platitude after platitude. your words are meaningless.
that's what this....
is all about....and when it fails to secure these rights, I can abolish it....you can't abolish the inalienable rights though...that's what inalienable means.
All you have are platitudes. Words without meaning. That is your life.Â
so now a democracy taking away your right to bear arms is "freedom"?
You prove over and over that you don't understand either freedom or democracy.
uh...that was the Declaration of Independance.
you aren't much of an American.
you are the one saying these things.
that was the Declaration of Independance.
Yes and the phrase "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness" has absolutley no meaning outside of "That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,"