Page 2 of 2 FirstFirst 12
Results 11 to 20 of 20

Thread: Cub Scout kicked out of his den for asking senator about common sense gun control

  1. #11
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    Wow, that was the whole question?

    Well, no, it wasn't.



    His rambling 2 1/2 minute "question" (which sounds a whole lot more like a speech than a question) included disparaging remarks about a liberal website's misconstruing words she said about genetic statistics about black people and diabetes. 2 1/2 minutes is not a "question", and multiple unrelated topics are meant to be rude.

    If this disrespectful brat were in my kids' den, I'd not have kicked him out. I'd have made an example of him and how to NOT be disrespectful in the future, teaching the other kids (who, apparently, already knew this it seems) and this kid the difference between talking AT someone, and talking WITH someone. The difference between listening to understand vice listening to respond.

    What a piece of #### this mother is raising.
    Yeah I found that page - Mom had a lot more to do with it.
    What gets me is her saying I can't understand why they would invite such a controversial legislator.
    You know - the one that actually represents her region.

    And the question about why is owning a gun a right but having healthcare a privilege? (Umm - Constitution, maybe?).
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  2. #12
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    Yeah I found that page - Mom had a lot more to do with it.
    Yeah, she typed up his question for him to read, but "using his words only". Uh huh. I've got ocean-front property to sell you in AZ, too.

    What gets me is her saying I can't understand why they would invite such a controversial legislator.
    You know - the one that actually represents her region.

    And the question about why is owning a gun a right but having healthcare a privilege? (Umm - Constitution, maybe?).
    In my humble opinion, the tenth amendment says that healthcare IS a right. It's just that having a right does not mean it is anyone's responsibility to provide it to anyone else. I have the right to time travel, for example, but no one is required to build me a time machine.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  3. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    In my humble opinion, the tenth amendment says that healthcare IS a right. It's just that having a right does not mean it is anyone's responsibility to provide it to anyone else. I have the right to time travel, for example, but no one is required to build me a time machine.
    This is where the language causes me to differ. You have a right to GET healthcare - a doctor or hospital should not refuse to help you because of your race or religion and so forth.
    Call it "right to access". A college should not be allowed to refuse a student because of their race - ACCESS - but they should not be required to provide it for free. Or even cheap.
    Ditto a store - a taxi - a restaurant - and so on.

    As an example, we regard driving as a "privilege". You don't just drive on the roads. We accept that.
    Years ago, when we rode around on horse-drawn carts or rode on horses, there was no such thing as a carriage or horse license and you didn't buy horse insurance.
    The roads were still there, but anyone had the right to use them. We regard it differently now.

    People are using the word "right" interchangeably with "access". You can buy a house - no one may prevent you. But the state is under no obligation to provide one.
    You may start a business and you can get a bank loan - if you can qualify - without regard for your race or religion. But they don't hand out businesses and loans for free.
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  4. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    This is where the language causes me to differ. You have a right to GET healthcare - a doctor or hospital should not refuse to help you because of your race or religion and so forth.
    Call it "right to access". A college should not be allowed to refuse a student because of their race - ACCESS - but they should not be required to provide it for free. Or even cheap.
    Ditto a store - a taxi - a restaurant - and so on.

    As an example, we regard driving as a "privilege". You don't just drive on the roads. We accept that.
    Years ago, when we rode around on horse-drawn carts or rode on horses, there was no such thing as a carriage or horse license and you didn't buy horse insurance.
    The roads were still there, but anyone had the right to use them. We regard it differently now.

    People are using the word "right" interchangeably with "access". You can buy a house - no one may prevent you. But the state is under no obligation to provide one.
    You may start a business and you can get a bank loan - if you can qualify - without regard for your race or religion. But they don't hand out businesses and loans for free.
    I like these discussions. I do, respectfully, disagree with the semantics.

    While I view hospitals and restaurants differently, in general I would say any private commercial enterprise should be allowed to discriminate based on race or religion or so forth. That's stupid of them to do, but in my view it is their right. Since hospitals receive federal funding for many patients, and are closely regulated because of that, and they provide life and limb services, they should not be able to discriminate on factors such as that.

    I think we are saying the same thing, though, with respect to access. As in, I have the right to receive (have access to) healthcare, or restaurants, or Walmart, or wherever, but that does not mean that someone MUST therefore provide healthcare, or insurance, or Italian food, or cheap Chinese products to me. They have the right to do so or not (with the aforementioned life-and-limb caveat). This is to say I have the right to keep and bear arms, but that does not mean that Winchester must make them, nor that the government must provide one to me. I have the right to receive healthcare, but no one is required to be a doctor or nurse, no insurance company must provide me insurance to help pay for my healthcare, and the federal government is not mandated to provide me with in health care nor insurance to make it cheaper to get.

    Anyone and everyone has the right to drive on the roadways, but - for public safety - STATES (not the federal government) have standards for who is allowed to travel. You must prove you are safe to do so. No one just gives licenses (unless, of course, you know a guy), but you cannot be stopped for any reason that is not safety related.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  5. #15
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    I think we are saying the same thing, though, with respect to access.
    Probably. I just make the distinction that access is not the same as having it, which is exactly where so much argument takes place, especially among younger people that I discuss things with.

    Since you NEED a job to function - they believe it is a RIGHT. Therefore the government has an obligation to see to it that you have one.
    And on and on the list goes - a "right" to housing, a "right" to education and so forth.

    And this is wrong on at least one other level.

    The government does not GRANT rights. They *protect* them.
    At least, this is certainly the perspective of the Constitution as originally written in the Bill of Rights is that, you possess these rights already, and the Government cannot infringe upon them.
    It doesn't grant freedom of speech, it protects it.
    “Good intentions will always be pleaded for every assumption of authority. It is hardly too strong to say that the Constitution was made to guard the people against the dangers of good intentions. There are men in all ages who mean to govern well, but they mean to govern. They promise to be good masters, but they mean to be masters.".Daniel Webster

  6. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    Probably. I just make the distinction that access is not the same as having it, which is exactly where so much argument takes place, especially among younger people that I discuss things with.

    Since you NEED a job to function - they believe it is a RIGHT. Therefore the government has an obligation to see to it that you have one.
    And on and on the list goes - a "right" to housing, a "right" to education and so forth.

    And this is wrong on at least one other level.

    The government does not GRANT rights. They *protect* them.
    At least, this is certainly the perspective of the Constitution as originally written in the Bill of Rights is that, you possess these rights already, and the Government cannot infringe upon them.
    It doesn't grant freedom of speech, it protects it.
    Agree wholeheartedly. "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." Our rights come from our Creator, and the Bill of Rights is just a list of specific limitations on governmental authority.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  7. #17
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    33,411
    Quote Originally Posted by SamSpade View Post
    Probably. I just make the distinction that access is not the same as having it, which is exactly where so much argument takes place, especially among younger people that I discuss things with.
    IMHO say anything is a 'right' beyond those defined in the Constitution and the Amendments is an incorrect use of the word in respect to

    Healthcare
    patronizing a business
    driving on the road

    and you made the proper distinction - you can have access to these things ...

    providing you can pay - No I don't think it is a function of Gov to provide you a minimum healthcare or house
    We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.

  8. #18
    Quote Originally Posted by GURPS View Post
    IMHO say anything is a 'right' beyond those defined in the Constitution and the Amendments is an incorrect use of the word in respect to

    Healthcare
    patronizing a business
    driving on the road

    and you made the proper distinction - you can have access to these things ...

    providing you can pay - No I don't think it is a function of Gov to provide you a minimum healthcare or house
    I guess it's just a semantics thing

    Quote Originally Posted by Tenth 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.
    To me, that means that, among our rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness, is EVERYTHING that is not relegated as a power of the government. We, the people, have ALL the power over EVERYTHING with the exceptions of those we agreed to give the government. And, the states are also under our control, so we have the power over both state and federal government. The tenth says the federal government can't usurp those powers they want - they are promised to leave we, the people, alone unless it is specifically a power granted to them by the people in the constitution. Recall, the preamble does not start out, "We, the founding fathers of the United States of America, do enter into contract with the subjects...", it's, "We, the people of the United States of America..." that do ordain and establish this constitution.

    I'm not saying you forget it, because I think we believe the same things just in different words, but I do think far too many people forget this simple truth. It's why we have an ATF, and a TSA, and a Dept of Education, and HUD, and.....the list seems almost endless.
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

  9. #19
    INGSOC GURPS's Avatar
    Member Since
    Nov 2012
    Location
    Peoples Republic Of Maryland
    Posts
    33,411
    Quote Originally Posted by This_person View Post
    I guess it's just a semantics thing


    you guess ....

    ..... people throw around the word 'RIGHT' like the Gov should be Santa Claus


    you get a Flat, Healthcare, and guaranteed minimum income
    We’re tempted to suggest a conspiracy here — but it’s just liberals agreeing yet again that conservatives have hidden, evil motives, because modern liberals simply can’t conceive of any other reason to disagree with the liberal consensus.

  10. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by GURPS View Post
    you guess ....

    ..... people throw around the word 'RIGHT' like the Gov should be Santa Claus


    you get a Flat, Healthcare, and guaranteed minimum income
    That's how they throw it around, but that's not what it means. If having a right to something means that the government shall provide it, I would like to know where my arms are that I have the right to keep and bear.

    To me, a right is simply a recognition that the government may not restrict you from something. We know the government has the authority, for example, to conduct a search of your papers and property if they have a search warrant, but not if they don't - you have a right to be secure from warrantless search and seizure of your property. You have a right to healthcare, but all that means is that the government may not restrict your access. You have a right to freely travel between the states, but the government is not going to give you a car. You have the right to pursue happiness, but the government is not there to ensure you are happy.

    See what I mean?
    There are only two possibilities; one is that we are alone in the universe, the other is that we are not.
    Both are terrifying.

Members who have read this thread: 51

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •  
Search:     Advanced Search
Search HELP

| Home | Help | Contact Us | About somd.com | Privacy | Advertising | Sponsors | Newsletter |

| What's New | What's Cool | Top Rated | Add A Link | Mod a Link |

| Announcements | Bookstore | Cafe | Calendar | Classifieds | Community |
| Culture | Dating | Dining | Education | Employment | Entertainment |
| Forums | Free E-Mail | Games | Gear! | Government | Guestbook | Health | Marketplace | Mortgage | News |
| Organizations | Photos | Real Estate | Relocation | Sports | Survey | Travel | Wiki | Weather | Worship |