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,"
you got the democracy tail wagging the fredom dog there, bodine.
democracy is intended to secure and protect the SELF-EVIDENT (this means that it's existance is evident without the need for a document to say it exists), UNALIENABLE right to FREEDOM (life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness). The DEMOCRACY is only there to protect this idea of FREEDOM. The DEMOCRACY isn't the FREEDOM itself. The right to participate in the political process (the DEMOCRACY) is insured not because it is the FREEDOM being discussed, but because it helps to SECURE the FREEEDOM that is SELF-EVIDENT and UNALIENABLE.
The GOVERNMENT isn't an unalienable RIGHT, it's something men institute in order to secure the FREEDOM that is SELF-EVIDENT. Our Constitution doesn't establish any FRREDOM, it only SERVES to protect the FREEDOM that is rightfully our by simply being humaan beings.
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 absolute meaning outside of the need to create a government to secure these rights. That's what "SELF-EVIDENT" and "UNALIENABLE" mean. The RIGHTS here exist with no need for any other explanation. They are "SELF-EVIDENT". The need to establish a government to insure the SECURING of these rights in no way DEFINES these rights...the rights are SELF-EVIDENT.
This isn't a difficult idea to grasp, bodine. They did a wonderful job of wording it so this can be easily understood...and yet you somehow have still managed to think that this idea of FREEDOM is only evident because of this document and only applies to the government that was created to secure it.
the FREEDOM is the water, the government (democracy) is the SWIMMING POOL we use to SECURE the water so we can swim in it. WATER has meaning regardless of the SWIMMING POOL. Water does not require a swimming pool to be water. Humans require democracy in order to SECURE freedom so we can swim in it, just as they require a swimming pool to secure water so they can swim in it.
now, it goes on to say that when men try to USE the government to deny people of their SELF-EVIDENT and UNALIENABLE rights, that government should be ABOLISHED and a new one created that will SECURE these rights of FREEDOM again.
That's what the document says and that's EXACTLY why it's such a powerful document.
Yes he did. And I can only find one thing that I disagree with. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic (and to the Republic for which it stands-pledge of allegiance) and I am happy for that.
In a Democracy, things like slavery are permissible if a majority of the people think so. If you can get enough people to vote the same way that you do, you can pass anything. Women's right to vote could be taken away, equal rights to work could be a thing of the past, etc.
The opposite is true as well. We have seen what happens with dictatorships and such.
What we now have, in my opinion, is the best possible. Give a guy a chance and then vote him out if it doesn't work out. However, I see an ever increasing federal government under both Democrats and Republicans with no real other choice.Â
People like Rick will vote for a person simply because they are a Democrat and totally ignore what they have/have not done or what they wish to accomplish. I am sure that you can point to people who would do the same for a Republican candidate as well. It is sad because it becomes an anything for the party rather than who actually deserves to be elected. The "Bush lied" and the "war for oil" crowd is proof enough of that.
I voted for some local ones and I also voted for Wellstone his first time out. I disagree with his policies now that I see what he really was like though.
This isn't a difficult idea to grasp, bodine. They did a wonderful job of wording it so this can be easily understood...and yet you somehow have still managed to think that this idea of FREEDOM is only evident because of this document and only applies to the government that was created to secure it.
No it didn't explain much of anything becuase it is mostly gibberish. Just more blah, blah, blah, just words with little or no meaning. Freedom is the ability to participate in the democratic system. Simply because crabs and people like him don't get their way doesn't mean they have lost any freedom. We live in society and the people as a whole get to decide how that society will look. In the real world freedom is the right to have input on the rules you have to live by.
Just more blah, blah, blah, just words with little or no meaning.
it's what this country was founded on.
and not only that, if your society decides to use it to deny it's own citizens of their unalienable rights of freedom, it says that we should abolish that system and make another one that will. If you want society to make rules that don't secure everyone's rights to be free, it says we are to abolish what you want.
If the people pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment then that is society's right.ÂÂ
and you would still claim this is a free society?
if society decides that everyone should only be allowed to go outside during certain hours and then only if they have obtained permission from the government to do so...you would still say this was a free society?
if society decides that white men can no longer own any property, you would still say this is a free society?
the ability to decide that people do not have their unalienable rights to freedom is not freedom, bodine....and when men decide they can use the system to deny people of these rights, then we have a responsibility to abolish that system. That is what being an American is about.
and you would still claim this is a free society? That is what I said didn't I? To say otherwise is undemocratic and shows a certain hostility to the constitutional process. I didn't say it would be wise to rescind the 2nd amendment and such action well may lead to the loss of freedom, i.e. the right to participate in the governing processes.
 Â
if society decides that everyone should only be allowed to go outside during certain hours and then only if they have obtained permission from the government to do so...you would still say this was a free society? You seem to lump all societies together. In a democratic society it is doubtful that the people would take the route you suggest. I have faith people won't make go that direction. You apparently don't and want to force something on them that they may not want. The right to choose the rules that people want to live by, I would think, is an unalienable right. You want to take that right away.Â
if society decides that white men can no longer own any property, you would still say this is a free society? If the white man has the ability to participate in that decision then I would say yes. But I don't think that will happen. You apparently have zero faith in the democratic process.
the ability to decide that people do not have their unalienable rights to freedom is not freedom, bodine....and when men decide they can use the system to deny people of these rights, then we have a responsibility to abolish that system. That is what being an American is about. You can't even define what an unalienable right is, crabs. What does life mean? It certainly doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and any other unalienable right only have meaning within the context of the society. The ability to participate in defining those terms and how they will be protected is freedom.Â
The right to choose the rules that people want to live by
you seem to think the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are a group activity. These are rights that INDIVIDUALShave, not groups. You can't even define what they mean. And even if you do define them there are people that will disagree with your definitions. Therefore, these terms are meaningless outside of the mechanism that implements them.
You can't even define what an unalienable right is, crabs
this from someone who defines freedom as democracy
I keep telling you that is what you think I mean. I have denied that freedom and democracy are the same thing. I have explained how they are different and why you are incorrect. But you insist on attributing this position to me but it is untrue.
To say otherwise is undemocratic and shows a certain hostility to the constitutional process.
uh...our constitutional process directs us to be hostile toward it if it is used to deny individuals of their rights to freedom. No it doesn't. It allows for amendment. Wasn't it your position that the south couldn't seceed?
I have denied that freedom and democracy are the same thing. - bodine
and yet...
Freedom is the ability to participate in the democratic system. - bodine You can't see that these are two different thing? The freedom to particpate in and the existence of a democratic system?
In the real world freedom is the right to have input on the rules you have to live by. - bodine
and such action well may lead to the loss of freedom, i.e. the right to participate in the governing processes. - bodine
The ability to participate in defining those terms and how they will be protected is freedom. - bodine All of these show a distinction between the governing system and the ability to particpate in it. You are much more dense than I have ever imagined, crabs.
the ability to participate in the governing system is called democracy.
you keep calling it (the ability to participate in the system) freedom itself...it's not freedom iteself, it's a type of freedom called democracy.
is the ability to participate in a form of government the only thing that is freedom to you?
If I participate in a system of government and that system still decides to kill me, I'm not free...I'm dead...and LIFE is one of the unalienable rights of FREEDOM.
Likewise, if I participate in a system and that system decides to imprison me, I'm not free. That system has failed to provide for my LIBERTY, which is one of my unalienable rights to FREEDOM.
If I am doing something that makes me happy and does not interfer with anyone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the system decides I can't pursue that which makes me happy, I am not FREE. The system has failed to provide me the pursuit of happiness, which is one of my unalienable rights of FREEDOM.
Democracy is NOT FREEDOM, because democracy can DENY SOMEONE's FREEDOM just as easily as it can SECURE it. And those documents that you say are just so many words of gibberish also say that when the democracy that is provided to SECURE these FREEDOMS is used to DENY freedoms, we are obliged to DESTROY it and make another one that with SECURE these FREEDOMS.
Let's say you have an election and both guys are for taking away your property and putting you in prison...you can participate in the elction, but where's the freedom?
in other words, it doesn't say your rights to FREEDOM are unalienable unless they are denied by a system you are allowed to participate in...they are unalienable..period.
no system can deny them, not even one you participate in...and if the one you participate in DOES deny them, you are supposed to ABOLISH that system.
the ability to participate in the governing system is called democracy. No it isn't. You just need look back a few years to know that isn't true.
you keep calling it (the ability to participate in the system) freedom itself...it's not freedom iteself, it's a type of freedom called democracy. No it is freedom. Freedom isn't getting everything you want.
is the ability to participate in a form of government the only thing that is freedom to you? It is the only freedom you get unless you go live by yourself on a deserted island.
If I participate in a system of government and that system still decides to kill me, I'm not free...I'm dead...and LIFE is one of the unalienable rights of FREEDOM. This statement is proof that the list of unalienable rights is just words.
As I said before not everyone sees life the same way. You don't give a damn about unborn children although they have life. And you see they are at risk because they can't participate in the system.
Likewise, if I participate in a system and that system decides to imprison me, I'm not free. That system has failed to provide for my LIBERTY, which is one of my unalienable rights to FREEDOM. So your position is that everyone in prison should be set free?
If I am doing something that makes me happy and does not interfere with anyone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the system decides I can't pursue that which makes me happy, I am not FREE. You are free to participate in the system. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean you are not free.The system has failed to provide me the pursuit of happiness, which is one of my unalienable rights of FREEDOM. It doesn't say you will be happy it says pursuit of happiness.  You are free to participate and pursue your happiness through the system.  But fundamentally, wh
at is the pursuit of happiness? As the words say the right isn't to be happy but to pursue it. Just because you don't get what you want doesn't mean that you can't pursue it.
Democracy is NOT FREEDOM, because democracy can DENY SOMEONE's FREEDOM just as easily as it can SECURE it. I never said democracy was freedom. I said freedom is the right to participate in making the rules that you live under. And those documents that you say are just so many words of gibberish also say that when the democracy that is provided to SECURE these FREEDOMS is used to DENY freedoms, we are obliged to DESTROY it and make another one that with SECURE these FREEDOMS. But then you still have the problem of defining what those rights are and how they will be secured and to what extent.Â
Let's say you have an election and both guys are for taking away your property and putting you in prison...you can participate in the election, but where's the freedom? You have freedom to try to elect someone else. But as you know, no one person no matter who it is has the power to put you in prison. No one said freedom was easy and no one has guaranteed that you can keep it.
Hitler was elected. No he wasn't. He was appointed.
in other words, it doesn't say your rights to FREEDOM are unalienable unless they are denied by a system you are allowed to participate in...they are unalienable..period. First of all, I don't see freedom on the list. But of course the list isn't complete. So how do we know what are rights and which ones may be alienable and which are
unalienable. The truth is there is no consensus on what rights are unalienable or even what the scope of those rights. The words in the DOI referring to unalienable rights is simply philosophical mumbo jumbo.
no system can deny them, not even one you participate in...and if the one you participate in DOES deny them, you are supposed to ABOLISH that system. Systems do deny what you call rights all the time. Seriously, you need to read the DOI again.
And you see they are at risk because they can't participate in the system
interesting...you say they can't participate in the system. So, why do you think they have rights to the freedom if they don't have rights to participate in the system?
interesting...you say they can't participate in the system. So, why do you think they have rights to the freedom if they don't have rights to participate in the system?
You must smoke a lot of dope. You can't follow what I have written at all. You keep saying that my position is democracy and freedom are the same thing. I have told you numerous times that they ARE NOTthe same. I have pointed out we have had democracy while we also had slavery. So you see democracy and freedom are not the same thing. And let me add that the people did not have a voice in determining that abortion was a right it was a few people on the Supreme Court that made that nonsense up. They were probably smoking the same stuff you are.
and they aren't systems that secure freedom when they do. I don't know because I have no idea what freedom means to you. Freedom means different things to different people that is why the unalieanble rights stuff is meaningless. The only important matter is the people's right to rule themselves.
seriously, you just called it a bunch of mumbo jumbo and now you want me to read it again? make up your mind. I didn't call the entire document mumbo jumbo. At least be honest about that.Â
what freedoms do the DoI and Constitution deny? The DOI doesn't cite but a few unalienable rights without providing any meaning for them. The Constitution sets out the parameters of the power of federal government, the states and the people. It has little if anything to help in determining what are unalienable rights.  Â
they SECURE freedoms, they don't deny them.They don't secure much of anything. The DOI doesn't secure anything and the constitution is simply a power structure.
The DOI doesn't cite but a few unalienable rights without providing any meaning for them. The Constitution sets out the parameters of the power of federal government, the states and the people. It has little if anything to help in determining what are unalienable rights.  ÂÂ
again, what freedoms does it deny?
They don't secure much of anything. The DOI doesn't secure anything and the constitution is simply a power structure.
it creates a power structure for the express purpose of securing these rights.
no system can deny them, not even one you participate in...and if the one you participate in DOES deny them, you are supposed to ABOLISH that system.
Wouldn't it be wiser to change or tweek the system in order to correct it? Our current system does not provide rights to an unborn child or a partially born child, should we abolish the whole system to correct for that?
For that matter, there once was a time when our system denied rights to slaves. Should we have abolished the whole system or was it wiser to just tweek it a little to correct the problem? In other words, abolish the part that was the problem and not the entire system.
again, what freedoms does it deny? I didn't say it denied rights I said it set the parameters of power. In so doing it marked the limits of that power by reference to certain things the federal government could not do. The drafters considered how much power they wished to give to the federal government and tried to limit the scope of power due to certain concerns about the nature of power.
it creates a power structure for the express purpose of securing these rights. No. The purpose of the Constitution wasn't to secure rights. The purpose was to provide an entity to do things the states individually were unable to do. In considering how much power the federal government should have the framers did specifically set forth limits to that power. But you don't seem to understand Amendment X. The states were free to act in all areas that they were not prohibited by the Constitution from engaging in.
Yes it was. And as long as people are free to participate in the system and have a voice to change it they will have freedom. But the judiciary is doing everything it can to circumvent the people's will and imposing its own will.
the point was, crabs, that the primary purpose of the Constitution was not to protect rights but to create an entity to accomplish certain goals. In achieving that purpose they attempted to limit the power of the federal government. But the purpose of the constitution was not to protect rights, it was create the federal government. The discussion of right rights was used solely to mark the limits of that power.
 That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" That was not why the Constitution was instituted. If securing rights were the goal that was done quite well under the Articles of Confederation.
this clearly says that governments are created to SECURE THESE RIGHTS (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) You can have a government without a constitution, crabs.
again...the Government was instituted to SECURE (protect) these RIGHTS.No. The Constitution was drafted and passed to achieve certain goals the states could not achieve by themselves and which were not being achieved through the Articles of Confederation. Again the reference to rights was an attempt to limit the power of the federal government. As we know that has pretty much failed.
Ah, yes.... the Constitution.... this brings back memories of SchoolHouse Rock!
Hey, do you know about the U.S.A.? Do you know about the government? Can you tell me 'bout the Constitution? Hey, learn about the U.S.A.  In 1787, I'm told, Our founding fathers did agree, To write a list of principles For keepin' people free. The U.S.A. was just starting out, A bold, brand new country. And so our people spelled it out: The things that we should be.
We the people, In order to form a more perfect union, Establish justice, Ensure domestic tranquility, Provide for the common defense, Promote the general welfare and Secure the blessings of liberty To ourselves and our posterity, Do ordain and establish this Constitution, For the United States of America. Â In 1787, I'm told, Our founding fathers all sat down And wrote a list of principles That's know the world around. The U.S.A. was just starting out, A bold, brand new country. And so our people spelled it out, They wanted a land of liberty.
We the people, In order to form a more perfect union, Establish justice, Ensure domestic tranquility, Provide for the common defense, Promote the general welfare and Secure the blessings of liberty To ourselves and our posterity, Do ordain and establish this Constitution, For the United States of America. Â For the United States of America.
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Monroe County Coroner David Toumey was hospitalized with a leg wound after accidentally shooting himself while trying to demonstrate gun safety.
Toumey told The Herald-Times for a story published today that he was demonstrating gun safety to some people at a Lake Monroe boat ramp about 11 p.m. Wednesday when he accidentally shot himself.
He said that as he checked to make sure his weapon was unloaded, the gun discharged, and a bullet struck him in his left leg.
"It's an unfortunate accident," Toumey said. "I've always been very, very safe."
He was taken to Bloomington Hospital and later transferred to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis.
Toumey said he was scheduled to have surgery today and expects to be in the hospital from three to five days.
Monroe County Sheriff Steve Sharp said he was unable to release details of the shooting because the report had yet to be filed by the deputy assigned to the case.
Â
*I just don't know what to think*
Â
var pageName="Monroe coroner accidentally shoots himself in leg" var server="" var channel="News" var pageType="article" var pageValue="" var prop1="" var prop2="" var prop3="updates/news" var prop4="" var prop5="" var prop6="news" var prop7="local_news" var prop8="" var prop9="" var prop10="" var s_code=' '
That story kind of reminds me of the time when I was teaching bicycle safety to kids in our neighborhood.  I took them to the test course which was about half a mile away, and on the way home one of the kids got hit by a car! She was ok fortunately, but her bike got kind of bent out of shape. I was pretty shaken.
Off the subject, I know. We can now return to Gun Control.
you got the democracy tail wagging the fredom dog there, bodine.
democracy is intended to secure and protect the SELF-EVIDENT (this means that it's existance is evident without the need for a document to say it exists), UNALIENABLE right to FREEDOM (life, LIBERTY and the pursuit of happiness). The DEMOCRACY is only there to protect this idea of FREEDOM. The DEMOCRACY isn't the FREEDOM itself. The right to participate in the political process (the DEMOCRACY) is insured not because it is the FREEDOM being discussed, but because it helps to SECURE the FREEEDOM that is SELF-EVIDENT and UNALIENABLE.
The GOVERNMENT isn't an unalienable RIGHT, it's something men institute in order to secure the FREEDOM that is SELF-EVIDENT. Our Constitution doesn't establish any FRREDOM, it only SERVES to protect the FREEDOM that is rightfully our by simply being humaan beings.
the phrase...
has absolute meaning outside of the need to create a government to secure these rights. That's what "SELF-EVIDENT" and "UNALIENABLE" mean. The RIGHTS here exist with no need for any other explanation. They are "SELF-EVIDENT". The need to establish a government to insure the SECURING of these rights in no way DEFINES these rights...the rights are SELF-EVIDENT.
This isn't a difficult idea to grasp, bodine. They did a wonderful job of wording it so this can be easily understood...and yet you somehow have still managed to think that this idea of FREEDOM is only evident because of this document and only applies to the government that was created to secure it.
the FREEDOM is the water, the government (democracy) is the SWIMMING POOL we use to SECURE the water so we can swim in it. WATER has meaning regardless of the SWIMMING POOL. Water does not require a swimming pool to be water. Humans require democracy in order to SECURE freedom so we can swim in it, just as they require a swimming pool to secure water so they can swim in it.
now, it goes on to say that when men try to USE the government to deny people of their SELF-EVIDENT and UNALIENABLE rights, that government should be ABOLISHED and a new one created that will SECURE these rights of FREEDOM again.
That's what the document says and that's EXACTLY why it's such a powerful document.
Why aren't those 700,000 felons/fugitives in prison for even attempting to purchase a firearm? That in itself, is a felony. Thanks Mr. Clinton.
Torpedo-8 7/16/04 7:49pm
It wasn't Clinton's job to prosecute crime. But he should have been asking his AG about it IMO.
Well hell. GW gets blamed for everything.
Why aren't those 700,000 felons/fugitives in prison for even attempting to purchase a firearm?
"the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed."
Crabs, you explained that very well.
thanks Muskwa...it's a great document
well worth defending
Crabs, you explained that very well.
Yes he did. And I can only find one thing that I disagree with. We are not a Democracy, we are a Republic (and to the Republic for which it stands-pledge of allegiance) and I am happy for that.
In a Democracy, things like slavery are permissible if a majority of the people think so. If you can get enough people to vote the same way that you do, you can pass anything. Women's right to vote could be taken away, equal rights to work could be a thing of the past, etc.
The opposite is true as well. We have seen what happens with dictatorships and such.
What we now have, in my opinion, is the best possible. Give a guy a chance and then vote him out if it doesn't work out. However, I see an ever increasing federal government under both Democrats and Republicans with no real other choice.Â
People like Rick will vote for a person simply because they are a Democrat and totally ignore what they have/have not done or what they wish to accomplish. I am sure that you can point to people who would do the same for a Republican candidate as well. It is sad because it becomes an anything for the party rather than who actually deserves to be elected. The "Bush lied" and the "war for oil" crowd is proof enough of that.
Grandpa Dan Zachary 7/18/04 2:24pm
Well said Dan.
this is just semantics...we are a democratic Republic....it's still a form of democracy.
Voted for a Democrat recently, Dan?
Recently as in, last three election cycles?
FWIW: I voted for three Democrats last election.
I voted for some local ones and I also voted for Wellstone his first time out. I disagree with his policies now that I see what he really was like though.
Crabs, you explained that very well.
This is explained well?
No it didn't explain much of anything becuase it is mostly gibberish. Just more blah, blah, blah, just words with little or no meaning. Freedom is the ability to participate in the democratic system. Simply because crabs and people like him don't get their way doesn't mean they have lost any freedom. We live in society and the people as a whole get to decide how that society will look. In the real world freedom is the right to have input on the rules you have to live by.
it's what this country was founded on.
and not only that, if your society decides to use it to deny it's own citizens of their unalienable rights of freedom, it says that we should abolish that system and make another one that will. If you want society to make rules that don't secure everyone's rights to be free, it says we are to abolish what you want.
so, bodine...if the society decides that you can't own a gun anymore, you still think that's a free society?
if the society decides that you can't own a gun anymore, you still think that's a free society?
If the people pass a constitutional amendment rescinding the 2nd amendment then that is society's right.Â
and you would still claim this is a free society?
if society decides that everyone should only be allowed to go outside during certain hours and then only if they have obtained permission from the government to do so...you would still say this was a free society?
if society decides that white men can no longer own any property, you would still say this is a free society?
the ability to decide that people do not have their unalienable rights to freedom is not freedom, bodine....and when men decide they can use the system to deny people of these rights, then we have a responsibility to abolish that system. That is what being an American is about.
and you would still claim this is a free society? That is what I said didn't I? To say otherwise is undemocratic and shows a certain hostility to the constitutional process. I didn't say it would be wise to rescind the 2nd amendment and such action well may lead to the loss of freedom, i.e. the right to participate in the governing processes.
 Â
if society decides that everyone should only be allowed to go outside during certain hours and then only if they have obtained permission from the government to do so...you would still say this was a free society? You seem to lump all societies together. In a democratic society it is doubtful that the people would take the route you suggest. I have faith people won't make go that direction. You apparently don't and want to force something on them that they may not want. The right to choose the rules that people want to live by, I would think, is an unalienable right. You want to take that right away.Â
if society decides that white men can no longer own any property, you would still say this is a free society? If the white man has the ability to participate in that decision then I would say yes. But I don't think that will happen. You apparently have zero faith in the democratic process.
the ability to decide that people do not have their unalienable rights to freedom is not freedom, bodine....and when men decide they can use the system to deny people of these rights, then we have a responsibility to abolish that system. That is what being an American is about. You can't even define what an unalienable right is, crabs. What does life mean? It certainly doesn't mean the same thing to you as it does to me. Life, liberty, the pursuit of happiness and any other unalienable right only have meaning within the context of the society. The ability to participate in defining those terms and how they will be protected is freedom.Â
you seem to think the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are a group activity. These are rights that INDIVIDUALShave, not groups.
this from someone who defines freedom as democracy
uh...our constitutional process directs us to be hostile toward it if it is used to deny individuals of their rights to freedom.
you seem to think the Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness are a group activity. These are rights that INDIVIDUALShave, not groups. You can't even define what they mean. And even if you do define them there are people that will disagree with your definitions. Therefore, these terms are meaningless outside of the mechanism that implements them.
this from someone who defines freedom as democracy
I keep telling you that is what you think I mean. I have denied that freedom and democracy are the same thing. I have explained how they are different and why you are incorrect. But you insist on attributing this position to me but it is untrue.
uh...our constitutional process directs us to be hostile toward it if it is used to deny individuals of their rights to freedom. No it doesn't. It allows for amendment. Wasn't it your position that the south couldn't seceed?
and yet...
and yet...
the ability to participate in the governing system is called democracy.
you keep calling it (the ability to participate in the system) freedom itself...it's not freedom iteself, it's a type of freedom called democracy.
is the ability to participate in a form of government the only thing that is freedom to you?
If I participate in a system of government and that system still decides to kill me, I'm not free...I'm dead...and LIFE is one of the unalienable rights of FREEDOM.
Likewise, if I participate in a system and that system decides to imprison me, I'm not free. That system has failed to provide for my LIBERTY, which is one of my unalienable rights to FREEDOM.
If I am doing something that makes me happy and does not interfer with anyone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the system decides I can't pursue that which makes me happy, I am not FREE. The system has failed to provide me the pursuit of happiness, which is one of my unalienable rights of FREEDOM.
Democracy is NOT FREEDOM, because democracy can DENY SOMEONE's FREEDOM just as easily as it can SECURE it. And those documents that you say are just so many words of gibberish also say that when the democracy that is provided to SECURE these FREEDOMS is used to DENY freedoms, we are obliged to DESTROY it and make another one that with SECURE these FREEDOMS.
Let's say you have an election and both guys are for taking away your property and putting you in prison...you can participate in the elction, but where's the freedom?
Hitler was elected.
Was THAT Freedom?
in other words, it doesn't say your rights to FREEDOM are unalienable unless they are denied by a system you are allowed to participate in...they are unalienable..period.
no system can deny them, not even one you participate in...and if the one you participate in DOES deny them, you are supposed to ABOLISH that system.
the ability to participate in the governing system is called democracy. No it isn't. You just need look back a few years to know that isn't true.
you keep calling it (the ability to participate in the system) freedom itself...it's not freedom iteself, it's a type of freedom called democracy. No it is freedom. Freedom isn't getting everything you want.
is the ability to participate in a form of government the only thing that is freedom to you? It is the only freedom you get unless you go live by yourself on a deserted island.
If I participate in a system of government and that system still decides to kill me, I'm not free...I'm dead...and LIFE is one of the unalienable rights of FREEDOM. This statement is proof that the list of unalienable rights is just words.
As I said before not everyone sees life the same way. You don't give a damn about unborn children although they have life. And you see they are at risk because they can't participate in the system.
Likewise, if I participate in a system and that system decides to imprison me, I'm not free. That system has failed to provide for my LIBERTY, which is one of my unalienable rights to FREEDOM. So your position is that everyone in prison should be set free?
If I am doing something that makes me happy and does not interfere with anyone else's life, liberty and pursuit of happiness and the system decides I can't pursue that which makes me happy, I am not FREE. You are free to participate in the system. Just because you don't get your way doesn't mean you are not free.The system has failed to provide me the pursuit of happiness, which is one of my unalienable rights of FREEDOM. It doesn't say you will be happy it says pursuit of happiness.  You are free to participate and pursue your happiness through the system.  But fundamentally, wh
at is the pursuit of happiness? As the words say the right isn't to be happy but to pursue it. Just because you don't get what you want doesn't mean that you can't pursue it.
Democracy is NOT FREEDOM, because democracy can DENY SOMEONE's FREEDOM just as easily as it can SECURE it. I never said democracy was freedom. I said freedom is the right to participate in making the rules that you live under. And those documents that you say are just so many words of gibberish also say that when the democracy that is provided to SECURE these FREEDOMS is used to DENY freedoms, we are obliged to DESTROY it and make another one that with SECURE these FREEDOMS. But then you still have the problem of defining what those rights are and how they will be secured and to what extent.Â
Let's say you have an election and both guys are for taking away your property and putting you in prison...you can participate in the election, but where's the freedom? You have freedom to try to elect someone else. But as you know, no one person no matter who it is has the power to put you in prison. No one said freedom was easy and no one has guaranteed that you can keep it.
Hitler was elected. No he wasn't. He was appointed.
in other words, it doesn't say your rights to FREEDOM are unalienable unless they are denied by a system you are allowed to participate in...they are unalienable..period. First of all, I don't see freedom on the list. But of course the list isn't complete. So how do we know what are rights and which ones may be alienable and which are
unalienable. The truth is there is no consensus on what rights are unalienable or even what the scope of those rights. The words in the DOI referring to unalienable rights is simply philosophical mumbo jumbo.
no system can deny them, not even one you participate in...and if the one you participate in DOES deny them, you are supposed to ABOLISH that system. Systems do deny what you call rights all the time. Seriously, you need to read the DOI again.
interesting...you say they can't participate in the system. So, why do you think they have rights to the freedom if they don't have rights to participate in the system?
and they aren't systems that secure freedom when they do.
seriously, you just called it a bunch of mumbo jumbo and now you want me to read it again? make up your mind.
what freedoms do the DoI and Constitution deny?
they SECURE freedoms, they don't deny them.
interesting...you say they can't participate in the system. So, why do you think they have rights to the freedom if they don't have rights to participate in the system?
You must smoke a lot of dope. You can't follow what I have written at all. You keep saying that my position is democracy and freedom are the same thing. I have told you numerous times that they ARE NOTthe same. I have pointed out we have had democracy while we also had slavery. So you see democracy and freedom are not the same thing. And let me add that the people did not have a voice in determining that abortion was a right it was a few people on the Supreme Court that made that nonsense up. They were probably smoking the same stuff you are.
and they aren't systems that secure freedom when they do. I don't know because I have no idea what freedom means to you. Freedom means different things to different people that is why the unalieanble rights stuff is meaningless. The only important matter is the people's right to rule themselves.
seriously, you just called it a bunch of mumbo jumbo and now you want me to read it again? make up your mind. I didn't call the entire document mumbo jumbo. At least be honest about that.Â
what freedoms do the DoI and Constitution deny? The DOI doesn't cite but a few unalienable rights without providing any meaning for them. The Constitution sets out the parameters of the power of federal government, the states and the people. It has little if anything to help in determining what are unalienable rights.  Â
they SECURE freedoms, they don't deny them.They don't secure much of anything. The DOI doesn't secure anything and the constitution is simply a power structure.
again, what freedoms does it deny?
it creates a power structure for the express purpose of securing these rights.
no system can deny them, not even one you participate in...and if the one you participate in DOES deny them, you are supposed to ABOLISH that system.
Wouldn't it be wiser to change or tweek the system in order to correct it? Our current system does not provide rights to an unborn child or a partially born child, should we abolish the whole system to correct for that?
For that matter, there once was a time when our system denied rights to slaves. Should we have abolished the whole system or was it wiser to just tweek it a little to correct the problem? In other words, abolish the part that was the problem and not the entire system.
certainly they set it up to change it as needed.
again, what freedoms does it deny? I didn't say it denied rights I said it set the parameters of power. In so doing it marked the limits of that power by reference to certain things the federal government could not do. The drafters considered how much power they wished to give to the federal government and tried to limit the scope of power due to certain concerns about the nature of power.
it creates a power structure for the express purpose of securing these rights. No. The purpose of the Constitution wasn't to secure rights. The purpose was to provide an entity to do things the states individually were unable to do. In considering how much power the federal government should have the framers did specifically set forth limits to that power. But you don't seem to understand Amendment X. The states were free to act in all areas that they were not prohibited by the Constitution from engaging in.
certainly they set it up to change it as needed.
Yes it was. And as long as people are free to participate in the system and have a voice to change it they will have freedom. But the judiciary is doing everything it can to circumvent the people's will and imposing its own will.
you realize that secure and protect are virtually the same thing, right?
the point was, crabs, that the primary purpose of the Constitution was not to protect rights but to create an entity to accomplish certain goals. In achieving that purpose they attempted to limit the power of the federal government. But the purpose of the constitution was not to protect rights, it was create the federal government. The discussion of right rights was used solely to mark the limits of that power.
" That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed"
this clearly says that governments are created to SECURE THESE RIGHTS (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness)
and that they obtain the power to
SECURE THESE RIGHTS by means of obtaining the consent of the governed.
again...the Government was instituted to SECURE (protect) these RIGHTS.
It's right there in black and white.
The goal was to create a government that would secure and protect those rights, and that would be severely limited beyond that purpose.
 That to secure these rights,Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed" That was not why the Constitution was instituted. If securing rights were the goal that was done quite well under the Articles of Confederation.
this clearly says that governments are created to SECURE THESE RIGHTS (to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) You can have a government without a constitution, crabs.
again...the Government was instituted to SECURE (protect) these RIGHTS.No. The Constitution was drafted and passed to achieve certain goals the states could not achieve by themselves and which were not being achieved through the Articles of Confederation. Again the reference to rights was an attempt to limit the power of the federal government. As we know that has pretty much failed.
The goal was to create a government that would secure and protect those rights, and that would be severely limited beyond that purpose.
The purpose was not to protect rights. That was being done well under the Articles of Confederation.
Ah, yes.... the Constitution.... this brings back memories of SchoolHouse Rock!
Hey, do you know about the U.S.A.?
Do you know about the government?Â
Can you tell me 'bout the Constitution?
Hey, learn about the U.S.A.
Â
In 1787, I'm told,Â
Our founding fathers did agree,
To write a list of principles
For keepin' people free.
The U.S.A. was just starting out,
A bold, brand new country.
And so our people spelled it out:
The things that we should be.
We the people,
In order to form a more perfect union,
Establish justice,
Ensure domestic tranquility,
Provide for the common defense,
Promote the general welfare and
Secure the blessings of liberty
To ourselves and our posterity,
Do ordain and establish this Constitution,
For the United States of America.
Â
In 1787, I'm told,
Our founding fathers all sat down
And wrote a list of principles
That's know the world around.
The U.S.A. was just starting out,
A bold, brand new country.
And so our people spelled it out,
They wanted a land of liberty.
We the people,
In order to form a more perfect union,
Establish justice,
Ensure domestic tranquility,
Provide for the common defense,
Promote the general welfare and
Secure the blessings of liberty
To ourselves and our posterity,
Do ordain and establish this Constitution,
For the United States of America.
Â
For the United States of America.
[Edited by on Sep 7, 2004 at 07:05am.]
NICE!!!
[Edited by on Sep 7, 2004 at 07:06am.]
http://www.indystar.com/articles/7/176174-9807-093.html
Associated Press
September 4, 2004
Â
BLOOMINGTON, Ind. -- Monroe County Coroner David Toumey was hospitalized with a leg wound after accidentally shooting himself while trying to demonstrate gun safety.
Toumey told The Herald-Times for a story published today that he was demonstrating gun safety to some people at a Lake Monroe boat ramp about 11 p.m. Wednesday when he accidentally shot himself.
He said that as he checked to make sure his weapon was unloaded, the gun discharged, and a bullet struck him in his left leg.
"It's an unfortunate accident," Toumey said. "I've always been very, very safe."
He was taken to Bloomington Hospital and later transferred to Methodist Hospital in Indianapolis.
Toumey said he was scheduled to have surgery today and expects to be in the hospital from three to five days.
Monroe County Sheriff Steve Sharp said he was unable to release details of the shooting because the report had yet to be filed by the deputy assigned to the case.
Â
*I just don't know what to think*
Â
var pageName="Monroe coroner accidentally shoots himself in leg"
var server=""
var channel="News"
var pageType="article"
var pageValue=""
var prop1=""
var prop2=""
var prop3="updates/news"
var prop4=""
var prop5=""
var prop6="news"
var prop7="local_news"
var prop8=""
var prop9=""
var prop10=""
var s_code=' '
if(s_code!=' '){s_it('gpaper138')
if(s_code=s_dc('gpaper138'))document.write(s_code)}else
document.write('
<im'+'g src="http://gpaper138.112.2O7.net/b/ss/gpaper138/1'
+'?[AQB]pageName='+escape(pageName)+'&server='+escape(server)+'&ch='
+escape(channel)+'[AQE]'+'" height=1 width=1 border=0>')
That story kind of reminds me of the time when I was teaching bicycle safety to kids in our neighborhood.  I took them to the test course which was about half a mile away, and on the way home one of the kids got hit by a car! She was ok fortunately, but her bike got kind of bent out of shape. I was pretty shaken.
Off the subject, I know. We can now return to Gun Control.
[Edited by on Sep 7, 2004 at 10:57am.]
I'm bad...I should have edited that post....oops....