It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

So where are the conservative and libertarian utopias?

page: 14
23
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 03:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: Greven

It is brief and somewhat ambiguous; that is neither detailed nor simple. Otherwise, there would not be so much case law regarding this amendment.

Oh good hell.
Just because case law has been generated from it, doesn't mean it is not simple and easily understood.
Case law came about from the courts thinking that they get to redefine it, to suite the times.
If the courts actually adhered to what their job is, that to determine if the law is valid or not as per the Constitution, we wouldn't have what we have.
And only a Lawyer/Politicians could misconstrue a single freaking sentence.


originally posted by: Greven
Since we keep skirting around things, a simple question: what do you define as arms? Just firearms?

Small arms are somewhat defined here. en.wikipedia.org...




posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

I don't think there is any thing preventing a person from buying an F22 now. Certainly there are privately owned fighter jets in the US. There was one on pawn stars for goodness sakes. There are thousands of registered hand grenade in Florida alone. Thousands of registered RPGs.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Fully armed?

I don't know either, it was just an example. You can sub it with anything that isn't legal.
edit on 6-4-2015 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Fully armed?

I don't know either, it was just an example. You can sub it with anything that isn't legal.


The one on pawn stars wasnt, but could be armed. I don't think there is anything preventing one of the guys from arming them, even with J dams. As long as they have their explosives bunker oked by the feds, etc. Not really a big deal.

What if I want to make one myself? All these things are make able by industrious persons. That's how we got them in the first place. Shall not be infringed.....



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   

originally posted by: macman
Oh good hell.
Just because case law has been generated from it, doesn't mean it is not simple and easily understood.
Case law came about from the courts thinking that they get to redefine it, to suite the times.
If the courts actually adhered to what their job is, that to determine if the law is valid or not as per the Constitution, we wouldn't have what we have.
And only a Lawyer/Politicians could misconstrue a single freaking sentence.

Small arms are somewhat defined here. en.wikipedia.org...

I once collected knives and swords (and perhaps will again once I have the disposable income), and those are things I would like to freely carry. Unfortunately, there are a number of laws regarding edged weapons - especially carrying them in public. The length of a blade and the mechanism that opens a blade is frequently regulated. Such laws exist even in places like Texas and Oklahoma. I think it's a bunch of crap - knives are practical tools even more than guns.

Yet, frequently, guns are less-regulated. I've had no issues purchasing the firearms I own, but I've certainly been shadowed when buying a sword from a vendor.



posted on Apr, 6 2015 @ 04:52 PM
link   
a reply to: ISawItFirst

Guess you missed the point as well.

It was just an example showing the difference between being the cause of something and allowing something.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: jacobe001

originally posted by: sirlancelot

As far a solutions if we get a conservative as potus that will serve the will of the people, be straight with them, and has some values then maybe the conservative ideals will bear fruit! Cant be any worse then the obamanation we have now!


Why do you think a Conservative President would bring "Change" (Where have we heard that before) when DC is full of special interests groups that will make you out to be the devil in the media if you do not serve them?

In 1970 there were 200 Corporate and Banking Lobby Offices in DC.

In 2015, there are well over 2000 Corporate and Banking Lobby Offices in DC

Here are some of your "politicans"

The Revolving Door in Washington DC

37 out of 40 Goldman Sachs lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
86 out of 114 General Electric lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
53 out of 61 Citigroup Inc lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
118 out of 141 Comcast Corp lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
59 out of 69 JPMorgan Chase & Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
39 out of 48 Koch Industries lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs

86 out of 116 Boeing Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
53 out of 68 Raytheon Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
33 out of 49 Northrop Grumman lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
22 out of 30 Monsanto Co lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
77 out of 103 Wal-Mart Stores lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs
71 out of 97 AT&T Inc lobbyists in 2013-2014 have previously held government jobs


Your right corporate lobbyist abound but just like Obama has changed things for the worse using his EO perhaps a conservative that follows the constitution instead of side stepping it can get America moving away from a socialist despotic govt we are heading towards.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:45 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik

ETA: Before you call "vagueness" again, asking where the libertarian utopias are is just pointing out the fact that libertarian and conservative ideals don't result in utopias, either.


Who claimed they did?


Because it is what keeps libertarian utopias from existing.


Then logical conclusion is it prevents ALL utopias from existing and reinforces the fact that the Original Poster created a straw man premise to troll other members whose ideology he does not like.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:55 PM
link   
a reply to: Greven

And that means what exactly.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 12:56 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Who claimed they did?

Nobody did and I have already said that I think the OP was poorly worded.

The point that I have been trying to make throughout this thread is that, setting aside the word utopia, not even a true libertarian society exists, and I have stated why I think they don't.


Then logical conclusion is it prevents ALL utopias from existing and reinforces the fact that the Original Poster created a straw man premise to troll other members whose ideology he does not like.

Do you know the meaning of the word "inclusive"?



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
Nobody did and I have already said that I think the OP was poorly worded.


Poorly worded is being generous.


The point that I have been trying to make throughout this thread is that, setting aside the word utopia, not even a true libertarian society exists, and I have stated why I think they don't.


Right, we heard you, because 'free people are free to conspire'.


Do you know the meaning of the word "inclusive"?


I certainly do, just as I am sure the trolling Original Poster does as well.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Right, we heard you, because 'free people are free to conspire'.

And you can't refute that. You said the same, in different words, in an earlier post.


I certainly do, just as I am sure the trolling Original Poster does as well.

But you don't see that the idea of the OP was to point out that the inability for political ideals to work in the real world "includes" the conservative and libertarian ideals.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:38 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
And you can't refute that. You said the same, in different words, in an earlier post.


Whereas I do not have a problem with free people or the byproducts of that freedom. That is what laws are for.


But you don't see that the idea of the OP was to point out that the inability for political ideals to work in the real world "includes" the conservative and libertarian ideals.


Except the Original Poster choose the two political ideologies he detests in an effort to troll the membership, postulating other than that is feigned ignorance.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:40 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Whereas I do not have a problem with free people or the byproducts of that freedom. That is what laws are for.

It isn't a question of you having a problem with it or not. It was given as the reason why all systems fail.


Except the Original Poster choose the two political ideologies he detests in an effort to troll the membership, postulating other than that is feigned ignorance.

I also think that the use of the word utopia was for the same reason but, all trolling aside, they do have a point.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:42 PM
link   

originally posted by: daskakik
It isn't a question of you having a problem with it or not. It was given as the reason why all systems fail.

...

I also think that the use of the word utopia was for the same reason but, all trolling aside, they do have a point.


The Original Poster's trolling premise was not about 'all systems' and they would only have a point if they were intellectually honest, which they are not.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:51 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
The Original Poster's trolling premise was not about 'all systems' and they would only have a point if they were intellectually honest, which they are not.

Yes it was, because it was "inclusive". On the trolly side, but still valid.

I don't understand why you can't see that.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Shows us the 'inclusiveness' of the Original Post in regards other political systems or ideologies.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 01:58 PM
link   

originally posted by: AugustusMasonicus
Shows us the 'inclusiveness' of the Original Post in regards other political systems or ideologies.


I keep an open mind on everything and I know that a liberal and progressive utopia is just not possible. Just like how a conservative utopia or a libertarian utopia is not possible.


Simple as that.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:01 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

That one line does not excuse a trolling title and agenda towards the two ideologies he detests.



posted on Apr, 10 2015 @ 02:03 PM
link   
a reply to: macman
It is an observation - and I would consider knives to be part of 'arms.' I suppose others would not.

Hence the line of inquiry regarding what is meant.



new topics




 
23
<< 11  12  13    15 >>

log in

join