Who do you think gave you the rights you enjoy while living in this country? The government, of the people and for the people, did. They did not spontaneously happen.
So, in your world view, all rights are absolute? Or just the 2A?SteelCore said:As far as "poor taste," I'll tell you what I think is in poor taste: Defending the enemies of the Bill of Rights.
Musketeer said:I would suggest those who feel their position in support of this moron is correct to modify their own AR-15 to a full auto weapon, call the BATF and dare them to prosecute you for it.
If you feel the COTUS is that clear then use it to challenge them by being the test case.
No, absolutely not.But isn't the argument you're making here essentially reducible to "might makes right"?
First of all, this is not answering my question directly, indirectly or otherwise.To address your question more directly: not only can arbitrary laws be enforced and victimless crimes be prosecuted, but so can downright tyrannical laws (which are arguably the same thing).
When was the last time you saw a rapist sentenced to 3 months???why is he getting 10X the sentence for a rapist or a bank robber?
The government, of the people and for the people, did. They did not spontaneously happen.
What do you think they are doing by writing the constitution? And who where they? They were citizen representatives of the masses. I hate to break it to you, and any one that hates the government so much, but the only reason you have the rights you do is because of the government. The government is an assembled mass of representatives of the people. The government IS the people. Just like tribal councils of old. They use the power of the assembled masses and collective will of the people to enact rules of law and codes of conduct. Like someone already said, if you find yourself constantly at odds with the will of the people then the problem is probably not the government...the problem is that you are a fringe element.Please show me a single passage in the Constitution, or in any letters, or notes, by the Founders, the idea that the government GRANTS rights
The government is an assembled mass of representatives of the people. The government IS the people
I hate to break it to you, and any one that hates the government so much, but the only reason you have the rights you do is because of the government.
If the USA had not formed it's own government and declared it's independence you would still be drinking tea and paying taxes to England.
The federalist papers are not the basis of our country. They were a sales pitch to the populace, printed in newspapers, as to why the constitution should be ratified. Maybe you should take that into account when you read them.I am sorry, but have you read the Federalist Papers? Hamilton specifically did not want to have this 'government which IS the people' that you describe. He wanted to have a government selected of the very best representatives of the people
Once again, you are confusing the sales pitch with the product.Actually, it's vice versa. The only reason we have governments is because we have rights. At least according to the Founders.
What do you think they are doing by writing the constitution? And who where they? They were citizen representatives of the masses. I hate to break it to you, and any one that hates the government so much, but the only reason you have the rights you do is because of the government.
The Big Boy Rule: Everyone is free to do as he chooses, but if one chooses to do something he knows is illegal and gets caught its time to be a big boy and take the consequences rather than whining that the law isn't fair.
Corrollary to the Big Boy Rule: Don't like the law? Don't want to take the consequences? Then don't break it, CHANGE IT! Big boys who think laws are unjust know they can do something about them. Heller proves it.