Tom Corbett reserves disarming Pennsylvanians as an option

[Elmar]

You assume they were sovereign. One cannot call oneself a sovereign nation successfully or with any weight until one is recognized as such by at least one other globally recognized sovereign.

Until then, such a claim is no more valid than your next door neighbor claiming his house to be a sovereign nation.

It's somewhat ironic given the definition of sovereign.

That is an entirely irrational standard. It as if a person cannot claim they are sovereign unless another person recognizes it, rights don't exist unless recognized by another?

Your example entirely goes against the ideal of self-government on which this nation was founded.

Let me give you an example that violates your statement: There is one nation on the planet earth, every citizen recognizes the nation as the one they are in. By your standard it cannot be sovereign.

Your standard is one nations wish you to use because it gives them the power to declare what is valid and what is not. They have no such air of authority over another entity.

[ehidle]

http://www.pagunrights.com/2010/04/w...astle-doctrine

As usual, he does not answer the question. Supporting use of force in the home is not the same thing as supporting castle doctrine.

We already have use of force in the home. We already have use of force outside the home.

What we do not have are castle doctrine and stand-your-ground. Tom Corbett is against both.

[Nullifidian]

That is an entirely irrational standard. It as if a person cannot claim they are sovereign unless another person recognizes it, rights don't exist unless recognized by another?

Your example entirely goes against the ideal of self-government on which this nation was founded.

Let me give you an example that violates your statement: There is one nation on the planet earth, every citizen recognizes the nation as the one they are in. By your standard it cannot be sovereign.

Your standard is one nations wish you to use because it gives them the power to declare what is valid and what is not. They have no such air of authority over another entity.

There are multiple relative meanings of sovereignty. External sovereignty is precisely defined as whether or not a nation is recognized as sovereign by other nations. That's the one I was talking about. It resolves such questions as "if our army steps foot there without their permission, is that an invasion?" If your nation does not recognize the other as sovereign, then the answer is "no." If it does, then the answer is "yes."

Internally however, sovereignty is achieved when it can be enforced. Sovereignty refers to the absolute control over a territorial jurisdiction. The only way to achieve that is to prove it. If an external nation does not recognize your sovereignty, and more specifically they recognize your territory as part of their own, then you must prove your sovereignty. Until you can exercise absolute control over your territory, you do not have it.

When the south seceded from the union, they declared their sovereignty but the union did not recognize it. Nor did any other nation. As such, the only way to achieve sovereignty for the south would be to enforce it. They attempted to do so by waging war. They failed. At no time were they a sovereign nation because at no time could they exercise absolute control over their territory. Therefore the union did NOT invade a sovereign nation since the south was never sovereign.


I apologize for the sidetrack.

[CenterTree]

As usual, he does not answer the question. Supporting use of force in the home is not the same thing as supporting castle doctrine.
We already have use of force in the home. We already have use of force outside the home.

What we do not have are castle doctrine and stand-your-ground. Tom Corbett is against both.

EXACTLY accurate and well put! I hope the voters can siphor through Corbetts haze of "where he stands on what issues" and vote for the REAL pro 2nd ammendment candidate.