Negative vs. Positive Rights

[quote]NickViar wrote:

-That’s good evidence that this is an oligarchy.[/quote]

How so?

I am on pins and needles to hear this twisted logic.

[quote]

Sure it is. It is even spelled out in the quote. We just have to do our part. [/quote]
-That ship has sailed.[/quote]

Based on what?

The fact the libertarian fantasy land that never existed in this country still doesn’t exist?

[quote]
-Again, that ship has sailed. Do-gooderism has perverted the system and proven, once again, that the law of unintended consequences exists.[/quote]

Wait so… You think “the ship has sailed” because people made mistakes/had bad judgment?

No government is going to get it 100% correct. And anarchy isn’t possible, so…

[quote]
-I agree that it’s 100% the fault of the electorate, but I disagree that it can be quite easily changed.[/quote]

Don’t tell me you’re another one of those that doesn’t vote, doesn’t do any sort of community activism/awareness except this board, and basically just laments how broken the system is while makes zero effort to fix it.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]NickViar wrote:

-That’s good evidence that this is an oligarchy.[/quote]

How so?

I am on pins and needles to hear this twisted logic. [/quote]
-Those that are part of the federal government can do what they want. Why else turn over a clause of the Defense of Marriage Act and keep the National Firearms Act? The federal government has no legal right to decide what is and is not marriage(10th Amendment), but there’s a specific law stating that the government can’t infringe on the people’s right to keep and bear arms(2nd Amendment). There is no principle(law). This is either a nearly-pure democracy or an oligarchy.

[quote][quote]
-That ship has sailed.[/quote]

Based on what?

The fact the libertarian fantasy land that never existed in this country still doesn’t exist?[/quote]
-Based on the National Firearms Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, etc.

[quote][quote]
-Again, that ship has sailed. Do-gooderism has perverted the system and proven, once again, that the law of unintended consequences exists.[/quote]
Wait so… You think “the ship has sailed” because people made mistakes/had bad judgment?

No government is going to get it 100% correct. And anarchy isn’t possible, so… [/quote]
-Well, no. If all violations of the Constitution were overturned tomorrow, I would chalk the “mistakes” up to people making mistakes. We’re not talking about mistakes-we’re talking about knowingly violating the law(unless, of course, you happen to be in the camp that believes the architects of the Constitution of the United States knew exactly what was coming with language like “necessary and proper”), and the mob permitting it.

[quote]

[quote]
-I agree that it’s 100% the fault of the electorate, but I disagree that it can be quite easily changed.[/quote]
Don’t tell me you’re another one of those that doesn’t vote, doesn’t do any sort of community activism/awareness except this board, and basically just laments how broken the system is while makes zero effort to fix it. [/quote]
The federal government collects trillions of dollars in tax income annually. About half of the United States’s voters receive money from the United States government. How do you combat that? Voting and talking do little compared to employing people.

(FTR, I don’t vote, because of my belief that those receiving tax money should not have a say. My occupation, although seen as a legitimate function of government by about 99% of people, is still tax-funded. I don’t believe that even those employed in the military, police/sheriff’s departments, or court system should vote)

[quote]NickViar wrote:

-Those that are part of the federal government can do what they want. [/quote]

Hardly. People in government and their cronies in the press don’t get charged the same way us plebs would, but lets not go full on hyperbole here.

Because the court case against DOMA was really fucking simple. My 3 year could have argued that shit. Clinton’s DOMA was just waiting to get smoked. The NFA is a lot more complicated and easier for the state to defend in court. “General Welfare” and all that.

There is two reasons for NFA (gun control). 1) tyrants & 2) buying votes from those who can’t think their way out of a paper bag, feelers. There are very few #1’s and many, many #2’s.

I’m not sure very many courts would agree with this. And seeing as the courts aren’t going to be able to be uninvolved in divorce (therefore marriage) anytime soon, I’m pretty sure you’d lose this challenge all day long.

Just because you’d lose the challenge doesn’t change the form of government ffs. It means, at least in your opinion, the law is unjust/wrong and you and you alone, have a duty to change that.

The argument that the tax stamp (particularly today) isn’t a significant infringement is one, that unfortunately, is going to hold water, for a long fucking time man. It’s a $200 excise tax and a waiting period essentially. You aren’t getting anything repealed because you don’t want to pay a tax lol.

Congress letting the Hughes amendment and Reagan signing it, on the other hand, is pretty egregious. The further we get out from 1986, as long as SCOTUS doesn’t flip, the closer that gets to an arguable infringement.

Quite the opposite. There is plenty of both. You just disagree they are just. (And I agree with you on some points.)

Just because you don’t agree with something, doesn’t mean it isn’t there.

Hyperbolic nonsense.

[quote]
-Based on the National Firearms Act, the USA PATRIOT Act, the Patient Protection and Affordable Care Act, etc. [/quote]

[quote]
-Well, no. If all violations of the Constitution were overturned tomorrow, I would chalk the “mistakes” up to people making mistakes. We’re not talking about mistakes-we’re talking about knowingly violating the law[/quote]

The same country that took about 100 years and 600k dead boys to end slavery, STILL took another 100 years before Democrats finally agreed that black people were in fact people (at least in political speeches, not in real life).

What the fuck about that makes you think the same government won’t make the mistakes you listed above? Seriously?

[quote]

The federal government collects trillions of dollars in tax income annually. About half of the United States’s voters receive money from the United States government. How do you combat that?[/quote]

The same way you eat an elephant. One bite at a time.

[quote]

(FTR, I don’t vote, because of my belief that those receiving tax money should not have a say. My occupation, although seen as a legitimate function of government by about 99% of people, is still tax-funded. I don’t believe that even those employed in the military, police/sheriff’s departments, or court system should vote)[/quote]

Fair enough, I think that is silly, but fair enough.

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The argument that the tax stamp (particularly today) isn’t a significant infringement is one, that unfortunately, is going to hold water, for a long fucking time man. It’s a $200 excise tax and a waiting period essentially. You aren’t getting anything repealed because you don’t want to pay a tax lol. [/quote]

A $200 tax is (almost)nothing. However, having to register the gun with the federal government is definitely a problem. (There’s also the little matter of the Second Amendment not saying, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be significantly infringed.”)

[quote]NickViar wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:
The argument that the tax stamp (particularly today) isn’t a significant infringement is one, that unfortunately, is going to hold water, for a long fucking time man. It’s a $200 excise tax and a waiting period essentially. You aren’t getting anything repealed because you don’t want to pay a tax lol. [/quote]

A $200 tax is (almost)nothing. However, having to register the gun with the federal government is definitely a problem. (There’s also the little matter of the Second Amendment not saying, “…the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be significantly infringed.”)[/quote]

I agree with you. The courts aren’t going to for awhile yet. That’s where the whole us doing our part comes into play.