Armed_Chicagoan
New member
Every "compromise" entails us giving up more and more of our civil rights. And they keep coming back for more.
The people he's talking about are members of this forum, yet they support restrictions on what most of us regard as a fundamental constitutional right that's not supposed to be subject to restriction ("infringement"). It would appear that we are already divided, and just waiting for the conquerors to march triumphantly down Main Street.
Are you proposing that political affiliation is an immutable characteristic?
I am polite but will not lift a finger to help anyone (other than to possibly save their life) that supports infringing upon my rights enumerated in the constitution.
So, why am I wrong? What benefit do I gain by helping out people who will use my knowledge against me when they vote? I should just be nice to them and hope they change their minds later?
Perhaps not your rights but more like your stand on issues.have nothing to do with people that are against your rights, I don't see how they will add anything positive to your life.
How? He's not in any way prohibiting them from expressing their thoughts. In any case, JERRYS isn't the government -- the Bill of Rights constrains the government, not you, me, or JERRYS. That said, I would reiterate that a private citizen electing not to interface with another private citizen because that second private citizen is actively trying to persuade the government to infringe the first private citizen's rights does not -- and cannot -- constitute an infringement of the second private citizen's 1st Amendment rights.Buck460XVR said:But....aren't you then infringing upon those folk's 1st Amendment rights?JERRYS. said:I am polite but will not lift a finger to help anyone (other than to possibly save their life) that supports infringing upon my rights enumerated in the constitution.
If my despised neighbor who forced me to spend thousands of dollars on a fence to define property boundaries were having his leg eaten by rabid ferrets on crystal meth, and I were in a position to stop it, I would.
As I said in my first post, the question presented by the OP is much more complex than a straight and instantaneous yes or no.
In any case, JERRYS isn't the government -- the Bill of Rights constrains the government, not you, me, or JERRYS.
You aren't wrong.Lately, I’ve seen a couple of requests for help from TFL members on issues I’ve got maybe 20 years of professional and private experience with. I didn’t comment because I know those members support additional restrictions on gun ownership and I don’t want to help them.
So, why am I wrong?
The 'Golden Rule' has been around for thousands and thousands of years......but who elects those in power? Who makes the choice of who can and does have the power to amend the constitution and make rules restricting what some folks consider rights?
Wait for it.........JERRYS.
It only takes a majority to take away any "guarantees" we have.
....as for helping out non-gun owners. The Pledge of Allegiance has the phase "one nation under God" in it. The Bible has a parable about a man helping another man, who is from a culture hated by his own. Seems they should go together....not against each other.