On Jul 27, 6:44Â am, strabo
flashlight.net> wrote:> Michael Price wrote:
>> On Jul 18, 4:23 pm, strabo
flashlight.net> wrote:>>> Michael Price wrote:
>>>> On Jul 17, 1:30 am, CanopyCo
aol.com> wrote:>>>>> On Jul 15, 10:14 pm, Michael Price
yahoo.com> wrote:>>>>>> On Jul 13, 2:15 am, Bret Cahill
aol.com> wrote:>>>>>>> The individual - nation analogue is used by the top political
>>>>>>> scientists including Alexis DeTocqueville, whose brilliance is
>>>>>>> unquestioned.
>>>>>>> Bret Cahill
>
>>>>>> Â The individual is not a nation and the nation is not
>>>>>> an individual. Â The second amendment refers to individuals
>>>>>> not nations. Â Why would a government bother to give itself
>>>>>> the right to be armed? Â Of course you'll never admit that you
>>>>>> might be wrong on this or anything else.
>
>>>>> Nations are made up of individuals, therefore a group of individuals
>>>>> is a nation.
>>>> Â So therefore me and my sister are a nation. Â In fact a "nation" does
>>>> not exist, only governments do. Â The government is certainly not the
>>>> individuals it supposedly represents, otherwise how could the
>>>> government punish individuals without punishing itself, which it never does?
>
>>> A *nation* (derived from 'native' or naturally born), is defined as a
>>> people with a common language, traditions and values, and borders.
>
>> Â Then it is not defined because there is no value
>> common to all members of a nation, nor any tradition
>> common to all members of the nation and arguably
>> (I'm no linguist) no language common to all members
>> of the nation. Â But it's OK, I speak Jive.
>
> Where there are multiple cultures, one will dominate and all others
> will accommodate.
>
Even if that were true (and I see no evidence of it's
neccesarily being true) how is that a good thing? How is
it related to my point?
> Where there are multiple languages, one will dominate
> and all will learn it.
Not true at all.
>
> The Socialists know this and is why they plot to impose
> bi-lingual education for non-natives and weaken English.
> Similarly, American culture is constantly under Socialist
> attack.
It may be, but how is putting culture in the province of the
government, the socialists chosen solution, going to help?
>
> Now, which culture, which language, do you want?
>
Well that's the point, there is no "we", so can the government
rightfully impose a solution.
> Culture, language and borders, the bane of the Internationalists.
>
> Â >
>
>>> This comprises the dominant culture.
>
>>> A threat to any one of these three criteria is a direct threat to the
>>> survival of the culture. A threat to culture is an indirect threat to
>>> individual survival.
>
>> Â So let me get this straight, the chance that there won't be
>> Opera or Morris dancing is a threat to individual survival? Â I can
>> see how people might be alarmed at the prospect of an Opera
>> absence leading to their deaths but for myself I'd risk death to
>> eliminate Morris dancing.
>>> A government may or may not accurately reflect the culture.
>
> If government doesn't reflect the dominant culture it is doomed.
>
>> Â Which has zero to do with the rediculous claim that the government
>> is the people. Â If the government were the people then all qualities
>> of the government would be the same as the qualities of the people.
>> Therefore the quality of whether they know what the government is
>> doing would be the same for both the government and the people,
>> and it's not.
>
> American government is NOT the people and was never
> intended to be. To claim that it is merely neutralizes the
> capacity to hold those in government responsible. That is
> another Socialist ploy to confuse and redirect power.
>
"Remember society is to blame." The regular sign off line
of Andrew Denton.
> American government MUST be made up of the people
> and reflect the dominate characteristics of the people -
Why considering that the capacity to dominate is in no
way an indicator of good government.
> its values, traditions,
> history, race, language, etc., but it always remains apart so it
> can be properly controlled.
>
>
>>> When it does not, a revolution is to be expected.
>
>>>>> Exactly how are you going to disarm a nation without first disarming
>>>>> all individuals?
>>>> Â I am not suggesting disarming the nation, I am merely pointing out
>>>> that the second amendment gives no rights to government, nor does
>>>> any other part of the US constitution.
>>> Correct.
>
>>> 1. Governments have power, not Rights.
>
>>> 2. The Constitution is obligated to protect the enumerated Rights
>>> Â Â found within the Constitution.
>
>>>>> As to the second amendment, it was entered into our constitution
>>>>> because it was considered a "God given" right. One that is the right
>>>>> of everyone. Like the pursuit of happiness. Everyone has the right to
>>>>> try and have a tolerable life instead of hating life every day.
>>>>> Therefore, regardless of if it was an American or any other nation,
>>>>> the individuals in each of them also have the same "God given" rights
>>>>> as we do. Not because they are given to us by law, but because they
>>>>> are inherited by us as civilized humans.
>>>>> The right to defend ourselves.
>>>>> The right to be left alone.
>>>>> The right to think what we want.
>>>>> The right to warship what ever we want.
>>>>> The right to leave a place we don't like being in.
>>>>> Stuff like that.
>>>>> Otherwise, it is not a right, it is a privilege granted you by your
>>>>> government.
>>>> Â Well yes, but that doesn't mean that the GOVERNMENT has a right to
>>>> nukes. It doesn't
>>>> mean the government has a right to a sawn-off shotgun.----
