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.

 

Why do we even entertain the loss of freedoms

page: 7
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

All you mentioned is an infringement and that’s what people have accepted, also people like yourself would probably accept a ban on guns.

It’s why I will always side with more freedoms not less.

As long as it doesn’t infringe on the rights of anyone else, I could give a flying fig what you do.

Might as well face it, you’re siding on fewer freedoms, own it.




posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 10:53 PM
link   
a reply to: Krahzeef_Ukhar


That's fine. And I agree, but you can't encourage freedom by pointing to the rules.


The rules you refer to were put in place to protect individual rights, put there by individuals with a quarrel against governments with too much power and a willingness to suppress people.


What would you suggest, new rules? New powers to those who promise to protect us?

Where was the NSA, department of homeland security or countless other new agencies made in the past two decades with unlimited amounts of tapping to "protect" us?

Is it not painfully obvious that they sold off our privacy in vein? Is it not obvious they'd just as soon use it for their own agendas rather than the purpose it was meant to serve?

So if that was all for nothing... I'd like to express my right to take care of my own safety.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 10:54 PM
link   

originally posted by: ketsuko
a reply to: chr0naut

This country once had universal (or at least government sponsored) psychological care, but the conditions inside those asylums were deplorable and so activists got them shut down.

The results are the current system we have which is pills and nothing. The mentally ill now have the right to be that way. That's one freedom many who fear guns aren't willing to take from someone else.


I'm not really talking about asylum level care, I'm talking about free, regular, psychological counselling and probably some time off from work to specifically allow for such counselling (or, perhaps it could be done through work).

Perhaps even, if it needs it, some time at a 'spa' type of situation where people who have issues could be pampered and counselled, simultaneously.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:03 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker
I don't suggest new rules, they are great rules and I agree with them.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:05 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I don't side with gun control. I'm just pointing out that Krahzeef_Ukhar made a good point. When those people made a small list of inalienable rights and let the states decide on everything else. The Constitution and Bill of Rights allowed infringement, just not on those enumerated rights.


That is why some states allow prostitution and others open carry and some don't. That list is important but it doesn't guarantee more freedom everywhere in the US.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:07 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: CriticalStinker
I don't suggest new rules, they are great rules and I agree with them.


Than as I pointed out in another thread, defend them with your voice... And start with defending those you disagree with.

If our society can learn to deal with the nuance of discussing things, even with passion while defending those they disagree with when the time comes.... I think we'd find things would trend in a better direction.

Then again, sometimes I'm too simplistic.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:08 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Yet you find localities who lean towards prohibition of ____ tend to have the most flourishing blackmarkets.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:09 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

Wrong.

Point out where the Constitution allows infringements of rights.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:11 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker
Can't argue with that.

But because we agree doesn't make us right.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't refer to a rulebook whilst complaining about people wanting rules.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:12 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar
a reply to: CriticalStinker
Can't argue with that.

But because we agree doesn't make us right.

All I'm saying is that you shouldn't refer to a rulebook whilst complaining about people wanting rules.



I like rules for the government more than rules from the government. And I try not to conflate the two.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:14 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

10th amendment

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

Now the "to the people" part sounds nice but I don't think anyone has asked the people what they really want.

So can you drive without your seat belt on or without insurance?



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   

originally posted by: CriticalStinker
I like rules for the government more than rules from the government. And I try not to conflate the two.


Why?

Rules is rules.
edit on 4-8-2019 by Krahzeef_Ukhar because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:17 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik


Again, that's not in the Constitution and are laws that do infringe upon the rights of the individual.


These laws are anti freedom and I am against them.


Pretty much QED



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:23 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

The amendments are part of the constitution and the 10th is part of the bill of rights. I might go along with you if it wasn't part of the original batch, but it was.

Also, if you love the constitution so much you have to take it's amendability as well. If not, why are you even bringing it up? It has been amended if you didn't like that part then how could you have ever liked it? It had that built in.

ETA: Besides a lot of this gun control thing is a state thing.
edit on 4-8-2019 by daskakik because: (no reason given)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:26 PM
link   

originally posted by: DBCowboy
These laws are anti freedom and I am against them.


What laws aren't?

Surely all laws are anti freedom.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:28 PM
link   

originally posted by: Krahzeef_Ukhar

originally posted by: DBCowboy
These laws are anti freedom and I am against them.


What laws aren't?

Surely all laws are anti freedom.


Jesus.

SMH

I agree with laws that punish people for infringing on the rights of other individuals.

I do not agree with laws that punish people when they aren't infringing on the rights of others.

You're either trolling or you're not very bright.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:28 PM
link   
a reply to: daskakik

The interest in my post: was to see if anyone is interested in looking at what we designate 'freedoms', and then; perhaps, even ''rights'.

Would you like to discuss what your views on our social concepts of 'freedoms' are?

(PS: Am not an American, if that matters.)



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:32 PM
link   
a reply to: DBCowboy

I'm dumb as balls, not trolling.
2nd line



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:38 PM
link   
a reply to: CriticalStinker

Well, I think if there is one thing governments have learned over the years is that you can't beat human nature.



posted on Aug, 4 2019 @ 11:46 PM
link   

originally posted by: dfnj2015
a reply to: DBCowboy

We give up our freedoms because the government has way better armaments than the citizenry. The government is not afraid of its citizens.



That is exactly why government has gotten beyond control of the people.



new topics

top topics



 
50
<< 4  5  6    8  9  10 >>

log in

join