If you close your eyes and maybe it will go away

[sgser]

It seems that there are some questions that are just not worth asking. My questions about our rights are answered with ipsedixitisms* or not at all. Ipsedixitisms are things like shouting fire in a crowded theater or my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

How does a “compelling state interest,” “heightened or strict scrutiny” (Whatever that is but it allows our lawmakers to infringe on our rights if it is met.) or any of the other any arguments curtailing our rights. Just how do arguments such as “being reasonable if they meet the lowest standard of constitutional review,” justify the loss of our rights?

Recently Kelo showed us just how much property rights and eminent domain really means. The list goes on, in one case (Wickard v. Filburn) a farmer was prevented from planting a few acres of wheat for his own personal use. We’re all waiting on Heller, the D.C. case that’s going to determine if the 2nd Amendment really says what we believe it says.

Sadly, I got only one answer that I could relate to. It came from Rule 105b, awhile back, who said: “Your rights are being violated. Every day. And there’s not a darn thing you can do about it because they’ve got the guns and the popular support to make it happen.” He was right

I’m close to the end of my ride here but most of you folks have decades left to rue the day if you let them chip away, bit by bit, at your rights until none are left. Read, if you haven’t or re-read if you have, Orwell’s: Animal Farm. Be sure to keep an eye on the Seven Commandments.



* ipsedixitisms: unsupported rhetorical assertions, pronouncements made without convincing supportive analysis.

[imperialism2024]

I'm surprised you didn't get any replies to that thread yet, though I'm guessing people either quietly support you or didn't bother to read it... hoping it would just go away.

There are several things I'd like to say, but won't post on the thread as I'd rather not have them enshrined in Google for eternity. I'll just put it out there that the only thing stopping the gov't from continuing to chip away is an armed resistance. And I can only hope that America has the resolve to use this option if necessary rather than pathetically complying with an anti-gun government like the British did during the various gun confiscations there... in fact "confiscation" is a poor word as so many gun owners willingly traveled to the police stations to surrender their firearms.

But I still hold out hope that it will change before that point. While others deny it, the states are acting on their own to advance gun owners' rights, even if the national government does not. So, I'm optimistic...

[Brown-Bear]

I love Orwell's writings. Just the other day I had to school another co-worker on "Big Brother". He thought it was a joke. Not a real book.

BB

[NY Refugee]

We lose our freedoms when the special interest groups who speak for the few have more sway on our law makers than the average person today.

And I don't think that 1984 is required reading in schools any more.

[Brown-Bear]

We lose our freedoms when the special interest groups who speak for the few have more sway on our law makers than the average person today.

And I don't think that 1984 is required reading in schools any more.

It damned well should be. That book was the sole instagator in my joining the military, to fight for what rights we have left in this country.

BTW, does Big Brother have a screen name???

BB

[Karl/PA]

BTW, does Big Brother have a screen name???

No, he just waits and watches.



sgser, you've laid it out quite well. When I read something like this I always think back to the speeches by George Mason. I wish he were around today.

[pex]

That book was the sole instagator in my joining the military, to fight for what rights we have left in this country.

That's confusing. Our rights are being taken away from the inside, not the outside.

[medik212]

It seems that there are some questions that are just not worth asking. My questions about our rights are answered with ipsedixitisms* or not at all. Ipsedixitisms are things like shouting fire in a crowded theater or my right to swing my fist ends where your nose begins.

How does a “compelling state interest,” “heightened or strict scrutiny” (Whatever that is but it allows our lawmakers to infringe on our rights if it is met.) or any of the other any arguments curtailing our rights. Just how do arguments such as “being reasonable if they meet the lowest standard of constitutional review,” justify the loss of our rights?

Recently Kelo showed us just how much property rights and eminent domain really means. The list goes on, in one case (Wickard v. Filburn) a farmer was prevented from planting a few acres of wheat for his own personal use. We’re all waiting on Heller, the D.C. case that’s going to determine if the 2nd Amendment really says what we believe it says.

Sadly, I got only one answer that I could relate to. It came from Rule 105b, awhile back, who said: “Your rights are being violated. Every day. And there’s not a darn thing you can do about it because they’ve got the guns and the popular support to make it happen.” He was right

I’m close to the end of my ride here but most of you folks have decades left to rue the day if you let them chip away, bit by bit, at your rights until none are left. Read, if you haven’t or re-read if you have, Orwell’s: Animal Farm. Be sure to keep an eye on the Seven Commandments.



* ipsedixitisms: unsupported rhetorical assertions, pronouncements made without convincing supportive analysis.

Most poignant post I've come across on this forum so far. I completely agree with you, and the worst part about it is that aside from voting and trying to make people more aware of the slippery slope we are headed down, there's really nothing that can be done*.

*legally, of course

[General Geoff]

Depends on what you define as "legal." If you take the Declaration of Independence into account, we as citizens of a free land have not only the right, but the duty to overthrow an oppressive government by any and all means necessary, should our liberty become eroded.


Nobody in government today (except maybe Ron Paul) will ever agree with that, but it's the truth.

[sgser]

Most poignant post I've come across on this forum so far. I completely agree with you, and the worst part about it is that aside from voting and trying to make people more aware of the slippery slope we are headed down, there's really nothing that can be done*.

*legally, of course

I disagree. I think that there is something we can do but only if we sincerely want to. It would take only an hour or two of our time, spread over several months and a couple of bucks.