How the ATF, Key to Biden's Gun Plan, Became an NRA 'Whipping Boy'

[Bill of Rights]

Yeah, perhaps.

Is it TDS to say, "I think Donald Trump is not fit for office", and then lay out a list of reasons and a cogent argument?

Now my wife, "Well Trump's just a jerk." That's TDS.

The simple fact is that Trump -is- a jerk personally. He also did an excellent job as the 45th President of this country. Those two facts can both be true at the same time. I’m not a “Trumper”... but of the candidates we’ve had in recent years, I think he is not only the best, but also the candidate we needed.

That doesn’t mean he’s a good person, just that he did an admirable job.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[Bill of Rights]

We will disagree as to whether having a voice in choosing the people who would rule over you, is a right or not. I would hope one would recognize that the Constitution has never been the litmus test for what is or isn’t a right.

Voting is a privilege of citizenship. Rights are given by our Creator, and belong to -all- people. It would be hard to argue that all humans have a right to vote in any of our elections and even harder to argue that God spoke about our elections.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[jamil]

Why is 24/7 voting unfeasible but the F-35 is feasible hundreds of times over? One of these is much more difficult than the other.

New money wouldn't even be required. At any given time, hundreds of thousands of people are being paid by government to look for work. I found some for them.

I’m open to ideas about how to expand voting hours. I don’t like that one. I would rather the people managing the vote volunteered to be there rather than because they wouldn’t get their government check if they weren’t.

 

[jamil]

We can agree that the constitution is not a litmus test for what is and is not an inalienable right. But one man, one vote is a contrivance of man, not God. The constitution is the road map to self governance and prescribes the way we select those that represent us...

I’m quoting this but I’m really applying it to the general discussion because we’re talking about the natural right to vote. And that specifically is not a natural right, per se.

The precepts around elections is indeed a contrivance of man. However, a person subjected to societal rules has a natural right to have a say in what those rules are. The fairest way to do that which people have contrived so far is one person, one vote.

So do you have a natural right to have your say by voting at the voting the designated polling place between the hours of 6am-6pm local time? Only because of the equal protection clause in the constitution. You have a right to have a say in the laws you have to live by. You only have a right to use the polling place because that’s the designated place to vote.

Or maybe a better example would be, do you have a right to cast your ballot by mail? No. But if the laws governing elections allow it, your right is to have the same methods available to you that everyone else has.

The constitution has more information about who gets to make the rules than it does establishing that voting is even a right. Saying who gets to make the rules to vote does imply the right to have your say, but it doesn’t establish how. And the equal protection clause makes it clear that it just needs to be fair.

 

[jamil]

You exhibit exactly what the Anti-Federalists feared, when the demanded the BoRs. That being that people only view rights as those explicitly spelled out in the Constitution. That sir, is not the case. It is a right to chose the people who will make laws you are subject to.

It was a two edged sword. If the constitution upholds some natural rights then people would interpret that if one is missing it isn’t a protected right. The other side of that is, if no rights are mentioned people will interpret that as no rights are protected. We probably got the best choice the people of the era could do.

 

[jamil]

Well, that’s because you understand the flaw of the argument.

I didn’t use it because I picked one, so that the post wouldn’t be too long. It’s not a flaw if you read the post above.

 

[jamil]

Voting is a privilege of citizenship. Rights are given by our Creator, and belong to -all- people. It would be hard to argue that all humans have a right to vote in any of our elections and even harder to argue that God spoke about our elections.

Blessings,
Bill

God is not necessary for the existence of natural rights. But I think we get to the same place. As I said above, the related natural right is for a person subject to rules has a natural right to have a say in what those rules are. A person does not have a natural right to a specific way of having their say, but they have an equal right to voice it in the same established way as everyone else.

What that means to voting rules in the US, yes, the bodies that are given the power to regulate elections, may put restrictions on elections however they see fit, but not in a way that would prevent eligible voters from voting. That doesn’t mean voting must be provided with equal ease. That’s impossible.

 

[foszoe]

I’m open to ideas about how to expand voting hours. I don’t like that one. I would rather the people managing the vote volunteered to be there rather than because they wouldn’t get their government check if they weren’t.

Have it scan the barcode on your state issued ID card

 

[Bill of Rights]

God is not necessary for the existence of natural rights. But I think we get to the same place. As I said above, the related natural right is for a person subject to rules has a natural right to have a say in what those rules are. A person does not have a natural right to a specific way of having their say, but they have an equal right to voice it in the same established way as everyone else.

What that means to voting rules in the US, yes, the bodies that are given the power to regulate elections, may put restrictions on elections however they see fit, but not in a way that would prevent eligible voters from voting. That doesn’t mean voting must be provided with equal ease. That’s impossible.

The Founders (and by extension, the Framers) thought that the existence of God was pretty necessary. From the Declaration: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienablle rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...." (do pardon if the punctuation or some such is slightly off. That was from memory)

Strictly speaking, the use of God in this context is an appeal to authority and thus, a logical flaw. With that said, as I once saw written, "if you're living your life like there's no God, you better be right."


Blessings,
Bill

 

[CopperheadL]

Yes, absolutely. Showing teeth isn’t an issue until you bite.

the problem with todays world is too many people are ready to bite whenever someone shows their teeth ( on both sides)

 

[jamil]

The Founders (and by extension, the Framers) thought that the existence of God was pretty necessary. From the Declaration: "...We hold these truths to be self-evident: That all men are created equal; that they are endowed by their Creator with certain inalienablle rights; that among these are life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness...." (do pardon if the punctuation or some such is slightly off. That was from memory)

Strictly speaking, the use of God in this context is an appeal to authority and thus, a logical flaw. With that said, as I once saw written, "if you're living your life like there's no God, you better be right."


Blessings,
Bill

I’ve read that enough. The idea of natural rights does not require a creating deity.

 

[JettaKnight]

I’ve read that enough. The idea of natural rights does not require a creating deity.

And being a person that bends a knee to said deity, I'm having a hard time seeing in his own text where he grants me all these rights attributed to him.

 

[Bill of Rights]

I’ve read that enough. The idea of natural rights does not require a creating deity.

And being a person that bends a knee to said deity, I'm having a hard time seeing in his own text where he grants me all these rights attributed to him.

You have your life that, according to His book, He gave you.

"...be fruitful and multiply..." so there's the pursuit of happiness.
( although there's also, "A man shall leave his father's house and shall cleave unto his wife, and the two shall become as one"... that's open to interpretation vis a vis happiness)

And then there's still liberty.... Someone better versed in the Bible will have to address this one.


And to be clear, this post is somewhat meant tongue-in-cheek, but I do believe as our Founders did in that point. and conversely, that the Bible as we see it today has been rewritten, things added, probably things removed, things moved around.... so I'm not sure how much of that particular book is as He intended it, but I believe that as our loving Father, He wanted everything possible for His children.

This post is about belief, mine in particular, and should not be considered authoritative for any other purpose.

Blessings,
Bill

 

[CampingJosh]

It might have something to do with supporting a sworn enemy because he dislikes Trump on account of personality and supporting a voting system that guarantees D control in perpetuity.

It's not Trump's personality that I find distasteful; it's his policies. You all seem to think that personality is the only reason someone could dislike Trump. Trump's administration was actively anti-freedom. The self-proclaimed "law and order candidate" is never going to be the freedom candidate.

Neither of the major parties represents me very well. Trump's emphasis, though, was primarily on the parts of the Republican platform that I think are bad, ranging from distasteful to outright immoral.
Trump is a nationalist; I am very much not.
Trump actively worked to undermine the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th, and 20th amendments.
Trump was not a fiscal conservative, full stop.
Trump did as much as he could to expand the power of the executive, effectively rewriting laws on machine guns, asylum, and much more without any input from the legislature.
Trump restarted federal prosecutions on marijuana possession in states that had legalized it, still not learning the lesson of the 1920s that prohibition never works.
Trump was an absolute disaster on foreign policy. Iran was bad. North Korea was bad. Tariffs were bad. If you think any of those was good, we couldn't disagree more.

Trump emphasized what I think are the worst parts of the Republican Party. And so I chose to vote against him. Is he a bad person? Yes. But I voted against him because of his policies.

 

[BigRed]

It's not Trump's personality that I find distasteful; it's his policies. You all seem to think that personality is the only reason someone could dislike Trump. Trump's administration was actively anti-freedom. The self-proclaimed "law and order candidate" is never going to be the freedom candidate.

Neither of the major parties represents me very well. Trump's emphasis, though, was primarily on the parts of the Republican platform that I think are bad, ranging from distasteful to outright immoral.
Trump is a nationalist; I am very much not.
Trump actively worked to undermine the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th, and 20th amendments.
Trump was not a fiscal conservative, full stop.
Trump did as much as he could to expand the power of the executive, effectively rewriting laws on machine guns, asylum, and much more without any input from the legislature.
Trump restarted federal prosecutions on marijuana possession in states that had legalized it, still not learning the lesson of the 1920s that prohibition never works.
Trump was an absolute disaster on foreign policy. Iran was bad. North Korea was bad. Tariffs were bad. If you think any of those was good, we couldn't disagree more.

Trump emphasized what I think are the worst parts of the Republican Party. And so I chose to vote against him. Is he a bad person? Yes. But I voted against him because of his policies.

I find it interesting that there are two major parties.

Would you care to do the run down of Biden and what you cast your vote for?

 

[jamil]

It's not Trump's personality that I find distasteful; it's his policies. You all seem to think that personality is the only reason someone could dislike Trump. Trump's administration was actively anti-freedom. The self-proclaimed "law and order candidate" is never going to be the freedom candidate.

Neither of the major parties represents me very well. Trump's emphasis, though, was primarily on the parts of the Republican platform that I think are bad, ranging from distasteful to outright immoral.
Trump is a nationalist; I am very much not.
Trump actively worked to undermine the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th, and 20th amendments.
Trump was not a fiscal conservative, full stop.
Trump did as much as he could to expand the power of the executive, effectively rewriting laws on machine guns, asylum, and much more without any input from the legislature.
Trump restarted federal prosecutions on marijuana possession in states that had legalized it, still not learning the lesson of the 1920s that prohibition never works.
Trump was an absolute disaster on foreign policy. Iran was bad. North Korea was bad. Tariffs were bad. If you think any of those was good, we couldn't disagree more.

Trump emphasized what I think are the worst parts of the Republican Party. And so I chose to vote against him. Is he a bad person? Yes. But I voted against him because of his policies.

Yeah, getting peace deals signed in the ME is just horrible foreign policy.

 

[jamil]

I find it interesting that there are two major parties.

Would you care to do the run down of Biden and what you cast your vote for?

The ME was pretty tame the last 2 years of Trump’s term. Then 0biden signaled that the Obama foreign policies of flipping allies in the ME are back, and we’re rattling sabres in Syria. Palestine is rocketing the **** out of Israel.

 

[IndyDave1776]

It's not Trump's personality that I find distasteful; it's his policies. You all seem to think that personality is the only reason someone could dislike Trump. Trump's administration was actively anti-freedom. The self-proclaimed "law and order candidate" is never going to be the freedom candidate.

Neither of the major parties represents me very well. Trump's emphasis, though, was primarily on the parts of the Republican platform that I think are bad, ranging from distasteful to outright immoral.
Trump is a nationalist; I am very much not.
Trump actively worked to undermine the 1st, 2nd, 4th, 5th, 10th, 14th, and 20th amendments.
Trump was not a fiscal conservative, full stop.
Trump did as much as he could to expand the power of the executive, effectively rewriting laws on machine guns, asylum, and much more without any input from the legislature.
Trump restarted federal prosecutions on marijuana possession in states that had legalized it, still not learning the lesson of the 1920s that prohibition never works.
Trump was an absolute disaster on foreign policy. Iran was bad. North Korea was bad. Tariffs were bad. If you think any of those was good, we couldn't disagree more.

Trump emphasized what I think are the worst parts of the Republican Party. And so I chose to vote against him. Is he a bad person? Yes. But I voted against him because of his policies.

I see. You're a globalist and your approach to domestic issues amounts to "Vote Cthulu. Why settle for the lesser evil?"

 

[IndyDave1776]

Have it scan the barcode on your state issued ID card

So any pickpocket can vote in my stead?

 

[jamil]

Have it scan the barcode on your state issued ID card

Missed this. But WTF? What is “it” that would be doing the scanning, and for what purpose? How does this extend voting hours?