Hide Your Gun In Plain Sight

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
...but when the first human decided the color of the sky would be known as blue then that human limited the color of the sky to being blue. ...

Complete and total ********.

Yet another lack of a factual rebuttal.

 

[Blueshell]

Yet another lack of a factual rebuttal.

Says the one who claims labeling a thing alters it's inherant attributes.

A rose by any other name...

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
Yet another lack of a factual rebuttal.

Says the one who claims labeling a thing alters it's inherant attributes.

A rose by any other name...

I did not claim that labeling a thing alters it's inherent attributes. I said that the sky's color is unlimited. In fact the wavelengths of light do not have any color at all until a human perceives those wavelengths as a color. The concept of color is a human construct stemming from how the wavelengths of light are perceived by the eye and mind. The wavelengths are not limited to being any color until a human says what color it is but the human who labeled that color as being blue limited the color to being blue because when the color is blue then it cannot be yellow or red but is limited to being blue.

Do try to understand what I actually said.

 

[Blueshell]

I did not claim that labeling a thing alters it's inherent attributes. I said that the sky's color is unlimited. In fact the wavelengths of light do not have any color at all until a human perceives those wavelengths as a color. The wavelengths are not limited to being any color until a human says what color it is but the human who labeled that color as being blue limited the color to being blue because when the color is blue then it cannot be yellow or red but is limited to being blue.

Do try to understand what I actually said.

I've said before that I'm trying to understand things from your perspective but I just cant seem to get my head that far up my ass.

Pointing out that something is limited is not to place limits upon it.

 

[Leader]

I've said before that I'm trying to understand things from your perspective but I just cant seem to get my head that far up my ass.

Pointing out that something is limited is not to place limits upon it.

What is your definition of unlimited?

How does something go from unlimited to limited?

 

[Bikenut]

Originally Posted by Bikenut View Post
I did not claim that labeling a thing alters it's inherent attributes. I said that the sky's color is unlimited. In fact the wavelengths of light do not have any color at all until a human perceives those wavelengths as a color. The wavelengths are not limited to being any color until a human says what color it is but the human who labeled that color as being blue limited the color to being blue because when the color is blue then it cannot be yellow or red but is limited to being blue.

Do try to understand what I actually said.

I've said before that I'm trying to understand things from your perspective but I just cant seem to get my head that far up my ass.

Pointing out that something is limited is not to place limits upon it.

Pointing out that something is limited is pointing out there has already been a limit imposed upon it. And if there is a limit already imposed upon it then it already ...

... is limited.

It would be helpful to refrain from resorting to the desperate use of insults and ridicule if you wish to have your arguments taken seriously.

 

[Firefighterchen]

I'm sorry, I don't understand what you're saying here.

You don't have the capacity to understand when your heads so far up your ass you can't tell the colors of the sky.

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

 

[Blueshell]

You don't have the capacity to understand when your heads so far up your ass you can't tell the colors of the sky.

Sent from my SM-N920T using USA Carry mobile app

*head's

 

[susanstpeter]

amen to free speech

Blueshell and I have merely posted our OPINION, so did you. We are still allowed to have our own opinion and to post it publicly, do we? Neither I or Blueshell infringed upon your rights. You are free to behave stupidly and we are free to call out stupid behavior. However, you are telling me that merely posting an opinion somehow infringes upon your rights. It seems to me that you have a problem with other people's free speech. I have every right trying to tell you how to conduct yourself. I have no right to force you to. You don't seem to grasp the difference between a discussion about people doing stupid things and a government overreach of preventing people from doing stupid things by enacting nanny-state laws. Again, you are free to do with your property whatever you want. However, we are also free to call out those people that do stupid things.

As a side note. You don't know me, my family or my history, so don't accuse me of anything that you can't back up with facts. You just sound stupid, especially considering my other posts in this forum.

Amen to free speech and differing opinions. Maturity should enable us to disagree agreeably in a forum such as this where no one is a threat to anyone else.

 

[DavidWhite]

You have to be born into a society in order for that to apply, further proving that a social compact is required for rights to exist.


The levels of Scrutiny are a test of the law, not of the right.


Earth's atmosphere scattered light between 430 to 750 trillion hertz for millions of years before humans came around. Man didn't come along and impose any limits, because man didn't even exist.


No right extends to negligence resulting in harm to others, likewise the RKBA doesn't extend to negligent storage methods resulting in prohibited persons having unauthorized access.


If you want that to be true then you will have to separate from this social contract (renouncing US citizenship) and establish your own (found your own country), declaring such; but even then your 'unlimited' right will be naturally limited by your geographical borders.


A permit to exercise a right is appropriate when it involves using a public resource. The permit's function is to ensure no one abuses the resource. Carrying a firearm does not consume a public resource so therefore permits to carry a firearm are inappropriate. Such laws need to be removed.


Life, liberty and property can all be taken or given away, thus inalienable rights don't exist and Locke was wrong.

 

[Blueshell]

At least you admit you're stupid, though.

 

[Blueshell]

What is your definition of unlimited?

Consult a dictionary.

How does something go from unlimited to limited?

Something goes from non-existence to existing by being created.

 

[Rhino]

If the right to life were a natural right, and thus inalienable, murder and suicide wouldn't be a thing. Murder and suicide would be literally physically impossible to accomplish. That life can be taken away proves that the right to life is a civil right, not a natural right.

If the right to liberty were a natural right, and thus inalienable, incarceration and slavery wouldn't be a thing. It would be literally physically impossible to arrest and imprison someone. That liberty can be taken away proves the right to liberty is a civil right, not a natural right.

If the right to property were a natural right, and thus inalienable, theft and damage wouldn't be a thing. It would be literally physically impossible to take anything from anyone, even with their consent. That property can be taken away proves the right to property is a civil right, not a natural right.

Samuel Adams was wrong.

Link Removed
.
So you're actually claiming the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding fathers and so on that laid out what our natural or inalienable rights are, were all wrong because you don't agree with their definition? There was something about the context of my post I didn't make clear because I assumed it was a given, but apparently it really is necessary for me to mention it. When I quoted and referenced what Samuel Adams was saying about natural rights, it was natural rights as established in our nation. The nation that was created and shaped by the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and those founding fathers that you completely disregarded when you responded to my post. I couldn't care less what YOUR PERSONAL philosophy is on natural or inalienable rights. Other than a topic for conversation, it will never have any impact unless by some miracle you manage to form your own country some day. But this is the United States, and a simple reading of the first few sentences of the Declaration of Independence shows your claims to be ridiculous.
.
Now if you're actually claiming that you know better than the founding fathers what principles and precepts this nation was founded on, and that what's written in the Declaration of Independence and Constitution only means what it says if you SAY it does, then you either get extremely high marks for humor, or you need to go to a detox facility. I can't imagine any possible way to signal a more complete surrender than by making claims so utterly preposterous. I confess I enjoyed the entertainment though. That was incredibly funny.

 

[Blueshell]

So you're actually claiming the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution, the founding fathers and so on that laid out what our natural or inalienable rights are, were all wrong because you don't agree with their definition?

No.

I agree with the definition. I'm saying they're wrong because *they* don't agree with the definition.

Natural Rights, by definition, are inalienable. We can test any right by documenting any instance of it being taken away or willingly given up.

The rights to life, liberty and property exist as civil rights, not Natural Rights, because they can all be taken away or freely given up.

As Civil Rights, they were created with a social compact and are limited by their definitions. At no time has any of our American social compacts defined any right in a manor that included negligence resulting in harm to others.

As such, a law regarding negligence resulting in harm to others falls outside of the RKBA and is not an infringement. This is further supported by SCOTUS in the Heller ruling when they say "no right is unlimited". This means every right has inherent limits as determined by the social compact that created it, and does not mean that a given law necessary infringes upon that right.

To determine whether or not a law is an infringement on a spicificaly enumerated right we use the Strict Scrutiny standard.

My argument here is that a minimal safe-storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny and thus not be an infringement.

 

[DavidWhite]

No.

I agree with the definition. I'm saying they're wrong because *they* don't agree with the definition.

Natural Rights, by definition, are inalienable. We can test any right by documenting any instance of it being taken away or willingly given up.

The rights to life, liberty and property exist as civil rights, not Natural Rights, because they can all be taken away or freely given up.

As Civil Rights, they were created with a social compact and are limited by their definitions. At no time has any of our American social compacts defined any right in a manor that included negligence resulting in harm to others.

As such, a law regarding negligence resulting in harm to others falls outside of the RKBA and is not an infringement. This is further supported by SCOTUS in the Heller ruling when they say "no right is unlimited". This means every right has inherent limits as determined by the social compact that created it, and does not mean that a given law necessary infringes upon that right.

To determine whether or not a law is an infringement on a spicificaly enumerated right we use the Strict Scrutiny standard.

My argument here is that a minimal safe-storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny and thus not be an infringement.

Link Removed

 

[Blueshell]

Link Removed

Spartans ****** little boys and got their asses handed to them by the Greeks. You have no room to talk.

 

[Blueshell]

When I quoted and referenced what Samuel Adams was saying about natural rights, it was natural rights as established in our nation.

You are disagreeing with the definition of "natural right" when you say things like this. Natural Rights come from Natural Law, not man-made social compacts.

Any right which is established by a nation is a Civil Right, not a Natural Right.

 

[Fawaller]

Hey...I actually like the way it is hidden but very accessible. But I hope that it is where the kids can't gain access easily by accidentally knocking it over or something like that.

 

[Rhino]

No.

I agree with the definition. I'm saying they're wrong because *they* don't agree with the definition.

Completely nonsensical. You can't agree with the definition from the Declaration of Independence, the Constitution and the founding fathers, and then say 'But they don't agree with themselves.'
.

Natural Rights, by definition, are inalienable. We can test any right by documenting any instance of it being taken away or willingly given up.

The rights to life, liberty and property exist as civil rights, not Natural Rights, because they can all be taken away or freely given up.

As Civil Rights, they were created with a social compact and are limited by their definitions. At no time has any of our American social compacts defined any right in a manor that included negligence resulting in harm to others.

As such, a law regarding negligence resulting in harm to others falls outside of the RKBA and is not an infringement. This is further supported by SCOTUS in the Heller ruling when they say "no right is unlimited". This means every right has inherent limits as determined by the social compact that created it, and does not mean that a given law necessary infringes upon that right.

Again, the discussion is about the USA. I couldn't care less how you personally define or interpret it.
.

To determine whether or not a law is an infringement on a spicificaly enumerated right we use the Strict Scrutiny standard.

My argument here is that a minimal safe-storage law would survive Strict Scrutiny and thus not be an infringement.

I never mentioned safe storage either. All I'm talking about is this massive delusion you have that you get to define what rights are in the US, and what's in our Constitution means nothing unless you say it does. And the true height of all comedy is that you actually think you have the legs to stand on to lecture others on this.
.
You seem to completely miss the fact that by claiming superiority over the founding fathers, the Declaration of Independence and the Constitution, you paint yourself as a complete lunatic and hopelessly surrender any possibility of winning any argument here. They quite plainly contradict what you're claiming. You might as well tattoo IDIOT across your forehead and stand on a corner with one of those THE END IS NEAR signs. Before you completely and irreversibly paint yourself into that corner, you might want to make it clear that you DISAGREE with what those documents and what the founders said, rather than attempting to continue with this God complex you're portraying. That won't necessarily make it easy to win your debate, but it will go a long way toward not making yourself sound like you need to be committed to a mental institution.

 

[Rhino]

You are disagreeing with the definition of "natural right" when you say things like this. Natural Rights come from Natural Law, not man-made social compacts.

I wasn't agreeing with anything. I quoted what Samuel Adams said about natural rights. You were the one who disagreed.
.

Any right which is established by a nation is a Civil Right, not a Natural Right.

Actually you bring up a good point. I phrased that quite poorly. The founders made it quite clear that they weren't establishing or creating those rights. They were simply affirming what was already naturally endowed by the creator, and enjoining the government from infringing upon them. Thanks for pointing out my error.