Take Note If You Own A Firearm!

[Synopsis]

5 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

 

GO RV, then BV  

 

Says the poster exercising cognitive dissonance and transference neurosis!!! That is YOU, Shabibilicious, here!!!

 

Can YOU, Shabibilicious, be honest with YOURSELF AND view YOUR OWN statements here and honestly acknowledge the radical hypocrisy YOU, Shabibilicious, ascribe to others to avoid YOUR OWN personal acknowledgement, personal responsibility, AND personal ownership?

 

Why do YOU, Shabibilicious, NOT honestly answer the questions posed to YOU, Shabibilicious, WITHOUT changing to inane babble toward others?

 

Snowflakes. Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

                                 

 

              

 

 

[Shabibilicious]

4 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

Says the poster exercising cognitive dissonance and transference neurosis!!! That is YOU, Shabibilicious, here!!!

 

Can YOU, Shabibilicious, be honest with YOURSELF AND view YOUR OWN statements here and honestly acknowledge the radical hypocrisy YOU, Shabibilicious, ascribe to others to avoid YOUR OWN personal acknowledgement, personal responsibility, AND personal ownership?

 

Why do YOU, Shabibilicious, NOT honestly answer the questions posed to YOU, Shabibilicious, WITHOUT changing to inane babble toward others?

 

Snowflakes. Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

                                 

 

              

 

 

 

I exude no contradictory beliefs, am stress free, and share neither when bantering back and forth with you.  Sorry to disappoint.....You'll have to set your sights on somebody else to use that argument.....and for Pete's sake, do your fingers a favor, call me Shabs.  

 

GO RV, then BV 

[nstoolman1]

Then you miss the point completely. Anyone who knows and follows the law can get a license to drive.

A criminal will not. All the BG checks and health checks will not prevent a person from committing a murder. 

Want to stop overdoses? Take away all drugs and alcohol.

Want to stop car deaths? Take away all vehicles.

Want to stop smoking related diseases? Take away tobacco.

Want to stop plane deaths? Stop all air travel.

Want to stop possible obesity? Take away sweets and snacks.

This list can go on but my point is that somewhere on this list there is an interest to you. Why should YOU be punished or inconvenienced or forced to pay a fee to use something on this list just because a group of people have decided they want you to be safe. 

This has been the cry of firearm owners for years. 

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

Clear & concise, NSTOOLMAN & SYN....

 

But try as you may with intelligent, logical, educated facts,

"SHABS" will never get it. 

 

He's not equipped .

SHABS is still lookin' for that one beer his 6-pack is short of....

 

.

[Shabibilicious]

6 minutes ago, SgtFuryUSCZ said:

***///

Clear & concise, NSTOOLMAN & SYN....

 

But try as you may with intelligent, logical, educated facts,

"SHABS" will never get it. 

 

He's not equipped .

SHABS is still lookin' for that one beer his 6-pack is short of....

 

Really?!!  By all means, please expand on your knowledge of cognitive dissonance.....I would love to hear it.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[SgtFuryUSCZ]

***///

Who rang your bell SHABS, seriously, son... you're damaged.

[Shabibilicious]

24 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Then you miss the point completely. Anyone who knows and follows the law can get a license to drive.

A criminal will not. All the BG checks and health checks will not prevent a person from committing a murder. 

Want to stop overdoses? Take away all drugs and alcohol.

Want to stop car deaths? Take away all vehicles.

Want to stop smoking related diseases? Take away tobacco.

Want to stop plane deaths? Stop all air travel.

Want to stop possible obesity? Take away sweets and snacks.

This list can go on but my point is that somewhere on this list there is an interest to you. Why should YOU be punished or inconvenienced or forced to pay a fee to use something on this list just because a group of people have decided they want you to be safe. 

This has been the cry of firearm owners for years. 

 

You make valid points, nstoolman......much respect to your opinion and manner in which you express it.  If nothing else comes of it, I like you, would prefer to have the laws, already on the books, instituted and followed to the letter.  

 

Still, back to tankdude's point.....why are we, out of the blue, with a completely Republican controlled government, rehashing this same thing from years ago?  Distraction, perhaps?  

 

GO RV, then BV 

[Synopsis]

1 hour ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

I exude no contradictory beliefs, am stress free, and share neither when bantering back and forth with you.  Sorry to disappoint.....You'll have to set your sights on somebody else to use that argument.....and for Pete's sake, do your fingers a favor, call me Shabs.  

 

GO RV, then BV 

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm................................................................Shabs

 

Could You, Shabs, honestly say an unbiased and non participating person in this discussion with a similar intellectual aptitude as You, Shabs, claim for Yourself agree with Your statement, "I exude no contradictory beliefs"???!!!

 

Wouldn't You, Shabs, as well as anyone agreeing with You on this statement You made then be exercising denial and deceit???!!!

 

Your, Shabs, diatribes You have made simply do not support Your assertion, "I exude no contradictory beliefs"

 

Snowflakes. Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

                                 

 

              

 

Believe it or not, Shabs, people here really do care about You, Shabs, and are reasonably concerned about Your well being. You, Shabs, alone can "Free" Yourself from Your forcefully imposed ideological and highly contorted while extremely painful configuration.

 

Please come join us, Shabs, in Your God given ideologically upright stature and right mind like the Good LORD gave us all. You, Shabs, will really then be "stress free" while Your subsequent unstrained ideological stance will perpetually Thank You, Shabs, as well as many others who will also applaud You for a needed activity only You, Shabs, can successfully complete.

[Shabibilicious]

42 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

Hmmmmmmmmmmm................................................................Shabs

 

Could You, Shabs, honestly say an unbiased and non participating person in this discussion with a similar intellectual aptitude as You, Shabs, claim for Yourself agree with Your statement, "I exude no contradictory beliefs"???!!!

 

Wouldn't You, Shabs, as well as anyone agreeing with You on this statement You made then be exercising denial and deceit???!!!

 

Your, Shabs, diatribes You have made simply do not support system" rel="">support Your assertion, "I exude no contradictory beliefs"

 

Snowflakes. Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

                                 

 

              

 

Believe it or not, Shabs, people here really do care about You, Shabs, and are reasonably concerned about Your well being. You, Shabs, alone can "Free" Yourself from Your forcefully imposed ideological and highly contorted while extremely painful configuration.

 

Please come join us, Shabs, in Your God given ideologically upright stature and right mind like the Good LORD gave us all. You, Shabs, will really then be "stress free" while Your subsequent unstrained ideological stance will perpetually Thank You, Shabs, as well as many others who will also applaud You for a needed activity only You, Shabs, can successfully complete.

 

Once again, Thank You very much.....but I must respectfully deline.  I know who cares for me and respects my right to my beliefs and who doesn't.......I'm perfectly comfortable with it. 

 

GO RV, then BV  

[tankdude]

Wow - didn't really think I was going to open this big of a can of worms! However - since I did, I guess it would only be fair for me to state my position and reasons for what I said about the crux of this discussion - mental health checks to buy a firearm. I know that this will not stop all mass casualty events. Evil is real - and if someone has evil intent to hurt others, they will find a way. I am in total agreement with that - heck, in the right hands, a barbecue fork can become a "weapon of destruction."

 

Again - I understand that not all guns that are used in mass shooting events were legally obtained...however, there is some evidence to point that a majority of the weapons used in mass shootings since 1982 were acquired legally by the shooter. Possibly as many as 90% of the 143 tracked incidents.  Of these, incidents, 36 of the shooter committed suicide at or near the scene. I may not be a mental health professional, but I believe suicide could probably be an  indicator of mental health issues. Also - 7 more of those shooters died in shootouts where they had no real chance of survival (I would consider this "suicide by cop" - my opinion)

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/

 

Now I'm not saying that mental health screening would have stopped all of these -  but I DO think there is enough anecdotal evidence to support that at least 1 of these could have been prevented - if the background check that was run had shown there was a record of mental illness. the NICS database that is used for doing background checks is supposed to have this information - but is it most often not entered. There is no law mandating that this information must be entered, and the percentage of entries vary from state to state. Even Lauthenberg offenses are often not entered by the military - only in those cases where a Dishonorable discharge happen are they entered.  If what we already have in place were to be properly utilized, I believe it would make a difference. 

 

First - I believe there is some common ground we can agree on. If someone has been  been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution they probably should not be able to own a firearm. Am I wrong in this? I don't think so.  Nether does the NRA - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

 

In fact - this is the current federal law and has been since 1968.  A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment.

 

So - this is where it becomes fuzzier is - how do we treat someone who admits themselves to a mental institution? How about someone who was obviously displaying mental illness - such as the Fort Lauderdale airport shooter.  just 3 months prior to his committing the shooting, he had walked into the Anchorage office of the FBI claiming that the CIA was controlling his mind, forcing him to watch radical Islamic videos on the internet and urging him to acts of violence. He was detained and taken for a mental evaluation, and as I understand it, was given an initial diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me me, this would be a HUGE red flag - but not so.

 

His firearms were confiscated for 30 days, but because he had no serious crime convictions (he had a deferred conviction for allegedly breaking down a door and strangling his girlfriend) and had not been legally adjudicated as mentally deficient, his guns were returned to him in December - about a month before his obviously premeditated shooting. 

 

I realize this is an emotionally charged issue. I can appreciate all the cogent and well thought out replies to this thread. I applaud those. A good debate should be exhilarating - even if it is vexing at times. In the end, I like to think I'm mature enough to admit points when I'm wrong, gracefully admit those, yet at the same time stand by my convictions. There are time when you have to "agree to disagree" and move on. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them. Shabbs and I spend more time nose to nose than we do eye to eye - but he is a brother in arms, and I will always respect him for that.  I like to think that maturity means being able to disagree - but continue to respect the other individual as a person

 

That's one thing that I think has become a victim of the "social media" mentality. Things so quickly escalate to name calling and mud flinging...(let he who sinless cast the first stone...).  I'm no saint - but I will at least try to defend my viewpoints in a rational manner, doing what I think I do very well - research and knowledge dissemination.  At least - that's my intent. 

 

“The best fighter is never angry.” 
― Lao Tzu

 

 

 

[Synopsis]

1 hour ago, tankdude said:

In fact - this is the current federal law and has been since 1968.  A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment.

 

The key issue is any federal assessment of any "mentally sound" qualification for an individual to purchase a firearm. The assessment is way too easy to be used for other things like intelligence, religious, and/or political profiling. Not to mention how inept and politically motivated the evaluation would be in the first place. Even then, the mental condition of an individual could change AFTER the mental evaluation for whatever reason and the crime would be committed anyway.

 

1 hour ago, tankdude said:

Even Lauthenberg offenses are often not entered by the military - only in those cases where a Dishonorable discharge happen are they entered. 

 

There is good reasoning utilized here. As I mentioned earlier, I had family members intervene with the Department Of Motor Vehicles to intervene to prevent elderly family members from renewing their Driver's License. As always, family, church, and community are the best intervention tools. Not mental health assessments by psychiatrists and federal entities.

 

Regardless of whether or not legally obtained firearms were purchased and used by criminals, they could find another way to obtain similar firearms or use other means to commit their crimes.Thinking that stopping mass murders with firearms by instituting a "mental health standard" would only create a cumbersome  bureaucracy that would not inhibit mass murders and, possibly, only promote them while the "mental health assessment" would be used for more invasive means to wrest freedoms, liberties, morals, peace, and prosperity from the Citizens Of The United States Of America while pursuing Life, Liberty, And The Pursuit Of Happiness.

 

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

 

You guessed it, Benjamin Franklin.

 

http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/484

[Shabibilicious]

15 hours ago, tankdude said:

Wow - didn't really think I was going to open this big of a can of worms! However - since I did, I guess it would only be fair for me to state my position and reasons for what I said about the crux of this discussion - mental health checks to buy a firearm. I know that this will not stop all mass casualty events. Evil is real - and if someone has evil intent to hurt others, they will find a way. I am in total agreement with that - heck, in the right hands, a barbecue fork can become a "weapon of destruction."

 

Again - I understand that not all guns that are used in mass shooting events were legally obtained...however, there is some evidence to point that a majority of the weapons used in mass shootings since 1982 were acquired legally by the shooter. Possibly as many as 90% of the 143 tracked incidents.  Of these, incidents, 36 of the shooter committed suicide at or near the scene. I may not be a mental health professional, but I believe suicide could probably be an  indicator of mental health issues. Also - 7 more of those shooters died in shootouts where they had no real chance of survival (I would consider this "suicide by cop" - my opinion)

 

http://www.motherjones.com/politics/2012/07/mass-shootings-map/

 

Now I'm not saying that mental health screening would have stopped all of these -  but I DO think there is enough anecdotal evidence to support system" rel="">support that at least 1 of these could have been prevented - if the background check that was run had shown there was a record of mental illness. the NICS database that is used for doing background checks is supposed to have this information - but is it most often not entered. There is no law mandating that this information must be entered, and the percentage of entries vary from state to state. Even Lauthenberg offenses are often not entered by the military - only in those cases where a Dishonorable discharge happen are they entered.  If what we already have in place were to be properly utilized, I believe it would make a difference. 

 

First - I believe there is some common ground we can agree on. If someone has been  been adjudicated as a mental defective or has been committed to any mental institution they probably should not be able to own a firearm. Am I wrong in this? I don't think so.  Nether does the NRA - https://www.nraila.org/articles/20130124/mental-health-and-firearms

 

In fact - this is the current federal law and has been since 1968.  A person cannot be federally disqualified from owning a gun based simply on a psychiatrist’s diagnosis, a doctor’s referral, or the opinion of a law enforcement officer, let alone based on getting a drug prescription or seeking mental health treatment.

 

So - this is where it becomes fuzzier is - how do we treat someone who admits themselves to a mental institution? How about someone who was obviously displaying mental illness - such as the Fort Lauderdale airport shooter.  just 3 months prior to his committing the shooting, he had walked into the Anchorage office of the FBI claiming that the CIA was controlling his mind, forcing him to watch radical Islamic videos on the internet and urging him to acts of violence. He was detained and taken for a mental evaluation, and as I understand it, was given an initial diagnosis of schizoaffective disorder. Maybe I'm wrong, but to me me, this would be a HUGE red flag - but not so.

 

His firearms were confiscated for 30 days, but because he had no serious crime convictions (he had a deferred conviction for allegedly breaking down a door and strangling his girlfriend) and had not been legally adjudicated as mentally deficient, his guns were returned to him in December - about a month before his obviously premeditated shooting. 

 

I realize this is an emotionally charged issue. I can appreciate all the cogent and well thought out replies to this thread. I applaud those. A good debate should be exhilarating - even if it is vexing at times. In the end, I like to think I'm mature enough to admit points when I'm wrong, gracefully admit those, yet at the same time stand by my convictions. There are time when you have to "agree to disagree" and move on. I don't have to agree with someone to respect them. Shabbs and I spend more time nose to nose than we do eye to eye - but he is a brother in arms, and I will always respect him for that.  I like to think that maturity means being able to disagree - but continue to respect the other individual as a person

 

That's one thing that I think has become a victim of the "social media" mentality. Things so quickly escalate to name calling and mud flinging...(let he who sinless cast the first stone...).  I'm no saint - but I will at least try to defend my viewpoints in a rational manner, doing what I think I do very well - research and knowledge dissemination.  At least - that's my intent. 

 

“The best fighter is never angry.” 
― Lao Tzu

 

 

 

 

As always, tankdude, your detailed research is above reproach.    I also agree with your sensible assessment of this particular issue.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Shabibilicious]

13 hours ago, Synopsis said:

"They who can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety, deserve neither liberty nor safety.’

 

You guessed it, Benjamin Franklin.

 

http://oll.libertyfund.org/quotes/484

 

The highlighted quote is actually about taxes, not liberty.  It has been contextually hijacked over time.  In actuality it is a quote from a Franklin letter (1755) requesting the Penn family lands be taxed to help fund security on the frontier, to which the governor, appointed by said Penn family, refused to do.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[nstoolman1]

Here is the full quote...

 

 

About this Quotation:

It is interesting to see where the main lines of disagreement lay between the colonists' delegation to London and the Crown in early 1775 which one would think would have been the last opportunity at some kind of reconciliation before independence was declared and war broke out. The sticking points for the Crown were the 8th, 11th, and 17th Articles which were declared to be “inadmissible” or were “refused absolutely”: “8. No troops to enter and quarter in any colony, but with the consent of its legislature. 11. The late Massachusetts and Quebec Acts to be repealed, and a free government granted to Canada. 17. All powers of internal legislation in the colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament.” The payment of back taxes might be negotiable but when it came to the stationing of troops or placing limits on the power of Parliament over colonial legislatures no compromise was possible without giving up political power. Franklin’s remarks about the trade offs between “essential liberty” and “a little temporary safety” seem to have been directed at those in the colonies who could see that further compromise was no longer possible by the Crown and that it was up to the colonies to cave in in order to maintain the peace. Franklin was urging them that to do this would be to give up the entire game and thereby scuttle any chance for real liberty and independence in the colonies.

 

 

 

 

It sounds to me to be a bit more than taxes.

I am not a Franklin scholar. I do know this quote applies to us today. Look at the Patriot Act. We give up a lot of freedom for the sake of safety (Airport) yet we are not really safer. 

[Shabibilicious]

13 minutes ago, nstoolman1 said:

Here is the full quote...

 

 

About this Quotation:

It is interesting to see where the main lines of disagreement lay between the colonists' delegation to London and the Crown in early 1775 which one would think would have been the last opportunity at some kind of reconciliation before independence was declared and war broke out. The sticking points for the Crown were the 8th, 11th, and 17th Articles which were declared to be “inadmissible” or were “refused absolutely”: “8. No troops to enter and quarter in any colony, but with the consent of its legislature. 11. The late Massachusetts and Quebec Acts to be repealed, and a free government granted to Canada. 17. All powers of internal legislation in the colonies to be disclaimed by Parliament.” The payment of back taxes might be negotiable but when it came to the stationing of troops or placing limits on the power of Parliament over colonial legislatures no compromise was possible without giving up political power. Franklin’s remarks about the trade offs between “essential liberty” and “a little temporary safety” seem to have been directed at those in the colonies who could see that further compromise was no longer possible by the Crown and that it was up to the colonies to cave in in order to maintain the peace. Franklin was urging them that to do this would be to give up the entire game and thereby scuttle any chance for real liberty and independence in the colonies.

 

 

 

 

It sounds to me to be a bit more than taxes.

I am not a Franklin scholar. I do know this quote applies to us today. Look at the Patriot Act. We give up a lot of freedom for the sake of safety (Airport) yet we are not really safer. 

 

The quote originally appeared in a letter from Ben Franklin in 1755 during the French and Indian war, and certainly pertains to taxes.  However, the quote taken out of context and by itself certainly sounds like a nod to liberty.  Here is the link

 

As with everything in this day and age....it's a subject of debate.  Thank you for your contribution, nstoolman.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

 

GO RV, then BV

Edited January 11, 2018 by Shabibilicious

[Synopsis]

2 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

The quote originally appeared in a letter from Ben Franklin in 1755 during the French and Indian war, and certainly pertains to taxes.  However, the quote taken out of context and by itself certainly sounds like a nod to liberty.  Here is the link

 

As with everything in this day and age....it's a subject of debate.  Thank you for your contribution, nstoolman.

 

https://www.lawfareblog.com/what-ben-franklin-really-said

 

GO RV, then BV

 

Here are some excerpts from the link You, Shaby, provided:

 

I started looking into this quotation because I am writing a frontal attack on the idea that liberty and security exist in some kind of "balance" with one another--and the quotation is kind of iconic to the balance thesis.

The "frontal attack" is more accurately labeled "self frontal lobe attack". This is clearly a statement from a Socialist Liberal Leftist hack who has decided to self lobotomize himself.

 

And every lover of liberty has heard them and known that they speak to that great truth about the constitution of civilized government--that we empower governments to protect us in a devil’s bargain from which we will lose in the long run.

Does this Socialist Liberal Leftist really understand what he is saying? Obviously NOT!!! He DOES NOT know his head from a hole in the ground (or other personal "safe space") like all the other Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. 

What a "False Narrative" promulgated from this Socialist Liberal Leftist hack with the audacity to base his premise on "presumed". Hear is a clear representation of the Socialist Liberal Left to distort reality and subjugate TRUTH from unsuspecting US Citizens.

In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

 

This is hardly compatible with the Declaration of Independence:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

 

Benjamin Franklin was a cosigner of the Declaration Of Independence:

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/declaration_signers_gallery_facts.pdf

 

Benjamin Franklin was also a cosigner of the US Constitution:

 

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/signers.html

 

This also is hardly compatible with the US Constitution:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.

 

This Socialist Liberal Leftist author is just plain stupid and does not know anything about what he is writing about.

 

Snowflakes. Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

                                 

 

              

 

Shabs, I suspect Your McDouble is clearly distorting Your perceptions while "pondering world issues" AND wrapped in Your nice warm blankie for You, Shabs, to start reading AND believing Socialist Liberal Left obvious distortions of reality. To assume Benjamin Franklin was only addressing taxes in the "seemingly questionable" quote is clearly out of context based on the actual supporting (not "presumed") information. 

[Shabibilicious]

14 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

Here are some excerpts from the link You, Shaby, provided:

 

I started looking into this quotation because I am writing a frontal attack on the idea that liberty and security exist in some kind of "balance" with one another--and the quotation is kind of iconic to the balance thesis.

The "frontal attack" is more accurately labeled "self frontal lobe attack". This is clearly a statement from a Socialist Liberal Leftist hack who has decided to self lobotomize himself.

 

And every lover of liberty has heard them and known that they speak to that great truth about the constitution of civilized government--that we empower governments to protect us in a devil’s bargain from which we will lose in the long run.

Does this Socialist Liberal Leftist really understand what he is saying? Obviously NOT!!! He DOES NOT know his head from a hole in the ground (or other personal "safe space") like all the other Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

The words appear originally in a 1755 letter that Franklin is presumed to have written on behalf of the Pennsylvania Assembly to the colonial governor during the French and Indian War. 

What a "False Narrative" promulgated from this Socialist Liberal Leftist hack with the audacity to base his premise on "presumed". Hear is a clear representation of the Socialist Liberal Left to distort reality and subjugate TRUTH from unsuspecting US Citizens.

In other words, the “essential liberty” to which Franklin referred was thus not what we would think of today as civil liberties but, rather, the right of self-governance of a legislature in the interests of collective security.

 

This is hardly compatible with the Declaration of Independence:

 

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.--That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness. 

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/declaration-transcript

 

Benjamin Franklin was a cosigner of the Declaration Of Independence:

 

https://www.archives.gov/files/founding-docs/declaration_signers_gallery_facts.pdf

 

Benjamin Franklin was also a cosigner of the US Constitution:

 

https://www.archives.gov/education/lessons/constitution-day/signers.html

 

This also is hardly compatible with the US Constitution:

 

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

https://www.archives.gov/founding-docs/constitution-transcript

 

In short, Franklin was not describing some tension between government power and individual liberty. He was describing, rather, effective self-government in the service of security as the very liberty it would be contemptible to trade.

 

This Socialist Liberal Leftist author is just plain stupid and does not know anything about what he is writing about.

 

Snowflakes. Socialist Liberal Leftists.

 

                                 

 

              

 

Shabs, I suspect Your McDouble is clearly distorting Your perceptions while "pondering world issues" AND wrapped in Your nice warm blankie for You, Shabs, to start reading AND believing Socialist Liberal Left obvious distortions of reality. To assume Benjamin Franklin was only addressing taxes in the "seemingly questionable" quote is clearly out of context based on the actual supporting (not "presumed") information. 

 

Of course you feel this way.....to maintain your facade, it must be as you say.    And if you are right and Ben Franklin did not write it in the letter from 1755....then one must concur that Ben plagiarized said quote from another author.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Synopsis]

1 minute ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Of course you feel this way.....to maintain your facade, it must be as you say.    And if you are right and Ben Franklin did not write it in the letter from 1755....then one must concur that Ben plagiarized said quote from another author.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

WOWZERS, Shaby!!! Maybe put down that McDouble and unwrap Yourself from Your nice warm blankie (i.e. and likewise "Free" Yourself) before making such ridiculous statements since Your "pondering world issues" has clearly distorted Your perception of reality, produced Your cognitive dissonance, AND fully developed Your transference neurosis!!!    

 

Shabs, Please, Please, Please ideologically "Free" Yourself from Your forcefully imposed "Safe Space" acting as Your, Shabs, "facade". I have no "facade", Shabs!!!

 

WOWZERS, Shaby!!! Maybe put down that McDouble and unwrap Yourself from Your nice warm blankie (i.e. and likewise "Free" Yourself) before making such ridiculous statements since Your "pondering world issues" has clearly distorted Your perception of reality, produced Your cognitive dissonance, AND fully developed Your transference neurosis!!!    

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

WOWZERS, Shaby!!! Maybe put down that McDouble and unwrap Yourself from Your nice warm blankie (i.e. and likewise "Free" Yourself) before making such ridiculous statements since Your "pondering world issues" has clearly distorted Your perception of reality, produced Your cognitive dissonance, AND fully developed Your transference neurosis!!!    

 

Shabs, Please, Please, Please ideologically "Free" Yourself from Your forcefully imposed "Safe Space" acting as Your, Shabs, "facade". I have no "facade", Shabs!!!

 

WOWZERS, Shaby!!! Maybe put down that McDouble and unwrap Yourself from Your nice warm blankie (i.e. and likewise "Free" Yourself) before making such ridiculous statements since Your "pondering world issues" has clearly distorted Your perception of reality, produced Your cognitive dissonance, AND fully developed Your transference neurosis!!!    

 

Question.  Do you believe the DV Political Forum is more of a "safe space" for me, or you and why?  Honesty, please.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Synopsis]

7 minutes ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Question.  Do you believe the DV Political Forum is more of a "safe space" for me, or you and why?  Honesty, please.  

 

GO RV, then BV

 

As a US Citizen who really cares about what ideas and expressions can and do and where they lead, I really do appreciate Your, Shabs, service to Our Country and want the best for You and all of us so that Your Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States Of America is not in any way vain. Notice the oath is regarding the US CONSTITUTION NOT The Government Of The United States Of America. I have experienced and seen where out of control US institutions have undermined individual capabilities to independently think and act for the individual's and others' well being. In like turn, I care about Your perceptions and where they lead for You, Shabs, and others.

[Shabibilicious]

2 minutes ago, Synopsis said:

 

As a US Citizen who really cares about what ideas and expressions can and do and where they lead, I really do appreciate Your, Shabs, service to Our Country and want the best for You and all of us so that Your Oath to uphold and defend the Constitution of the United States Of America is not in any way vain. Notice the oath is regarding the US CONSTITUTION NOT The Government Of The United States Of America. I have experienced and seen where out of control US institutions have undermined individual capabilities to independently think and act for the individual's and others' well being. In like turn, I care about Your perceptions and where they lead for You, Shabs, and others.

 

Well stated.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[George Hayduke]

On 1/8/2018 at 12:36 PM, tankdude said:

Ummm - just curious - why are we rehashing this?  

 

Exactly TD... the UN has no control over the US Constitution or its amendments.  We've discussed this before some years back.  The intent is for the UN members to agree to curtail illegal arms manufacturing and transfer to unstable regimes and terrorist organizations.  Our Constitution provides that the president "shall have Power, by and with the Advice and Consent of the Senate, to make Treaties, provided two-thirds of the Senators present concur" (Article II, section 2).

 

The blue helmets are'nt coming anytime soon.

[Muleslayer]

On 1/10/2018 at 9:14 AM, Shabibilicious said:

 

And still you like so many others resort to personal attacks.....A typical response by those who feel threatened mentally.  You're not the first person and certainly won't be the last who wants to have my posting rights taken away.  

 

GO RV, then BV

No it was not aimed at you. You chose to champion Umbertosis.

lets also be accurate. I was asking for posting limits.

 Please remember you dug this up.

 

 On the flipside it is a lot of fun to Needle you!

[Shabibilicious]

11 hours ago, Muleslayer said:

 

 On the flipside it is a lot of fun to Needle you!

 

Careful.  

 

Never let them see you sweat.  

 

GO RV, then BV

[Muleslayer]

12 hours ago, Shabibilicious said:

 

Careful.  

 

Never let them see you sweat.  

 

GO RV, then BV

Did I break the rules?

report me