"I can't breathe....Breathe Easy"

[rambone]

Wow this thread is all over the place. I can't breathe.

 

[Henry]

Wow this thread is all over the place. I can't breathe.

You may want to reiterate that you like guns before you say that.

 

[Nodonutz]

View attachment 34006

 

[LockStocksAndBarrel]

This is a loooooong way from a t-shirt...

 

[Hoosier8]

Haven't you heard? It's us versus them. In every situation, you have to be an us or them. I'm having trouble keeping track of whether I'm an us or them. We all have to choose sides in every situation. There is absolutely no room for "sounds like a local issue" or "I'm sure there are details I don't know, so I'll stay out of it"

CHOOSE!!!!

OK, I am us or them. There. Done.

 

[hornadylnl]

Using your example a bit differently to highlight the foregoing discussion: if the Lynch Mob decides a person should be able to marry, for example, a Polar Bear...and the benevolent King grants the Mob's request (with no change to his ability to be involved in such decisions); society has no doubt become more "permissive" and in line with the Mob's values...but has it really become more "Free?" (I'm not opposed to GM, just trying to use your example to direct folks to think back about the foregoing discussion).

We have Government to protect you from the Lynch Mob; that's "Justice." We have the Constitution to protect you from the Government; that's "Freedom" or "Liberty." We seem to be doing an ok job on the first part of the social contract; the second, not so much. The rub is when the changing definition of "Justice" requires the Government doing more and more on the first part - for example taxing and redistributing the "Lynch Mob's" earnings to benefit particular individuals - that the second part of the social contract starts to be eroded.

I agree but I think the end result is the same, if not worse with the lynch mob. Today, the law protects people from things when before, those same actions had no law against them but they lynch mob dealt with on their own. Continually reading about lynch mob utopias has me in greater fear of them than the government. At least with government, I can plead my case. They lynch mob is judge, jury and executioner.

Was there a law against having a purple mohawk in 1930 America? I'm sure there wasn't but I'm sure there would be a member of the lynch mob somewhere who would be offended and therefore feel justified in beating my ass. Just read what everyone says about saggy pants and how infuriated they get over them. Nobody is harmed by them yet if government didn't protect the offender from the mob, the mob would feel justified in handing out their own "justice".

 

[HoughMade]

I'd like to see those t-shirts

You have inspired me. Presenting: The HoughMade "Do I have to pick a side?" line of T-Shirts

And my personal favorite:

 

[Denny347]

And such sentiment is troubling, especially so given that you are a law enforcement officer (I assume, based on your comments in other threads).

Agents of the State who lack the humility to recognize that fundamental human rights come from a power higher than humans and are therefore inviolable, are especially potentially dangerous, because the logical conclusion of their belief is that they, through the State, wield the ultimate power.

What? So since I'm an Atheist LEO I'm dangerous? You win the internet with that one.

 

[Denny347]

You have inspired me. Presenting: The HoughMade "Do I have to pick a side?" line of T-Shirts

I'll order one of each...brilliant!!!!!

 

[mrortega]

What? So since I'm an Atheist LEO I'm dangerous? You win the internet with that one.

Jeepers! I thought there weren't any Atheists in fox holes or patrol cars!

 

[Denny347]

Jeepers! I thought there weren't any Atheists in fox holes or patrol cars!

There are quite a few of us rest assured.

 

[Robert Richardson]

There are quite a few of us rest assured.

I can rest assured but can you if you are wrong? Just asking.

 

[Henry]

What? So since I'm an Atheist LEO I'm dangerous? You win the internet with that one.

I suspect Locke would say yes.

John Locke On Equality, Toleration, and the Atheist Exception - Student Pulse

 

[ArmedProgrammer]

What? So since I'm an Atheist LEO I'm dangerous? You win the internet with that one.

For crap's sake... ok ... everyone has inalienable fundamental rights that are given to them by [God | The Great Pumpkin | Scooby Doo | Nature | They are just born with them K?] are we happy now?

The key point is - EVERYONE has the rights - PERIOD.

And if some other individual or state or whatever choose not to recognize those rights, then doom on them.

Yeesh...

 

[Henry]

For crap's sake... ok ... everyone has inalienable fundamental rights that are given to them by [God | The Great Pumpkin | Scooby Doo | Nature | They are just born with them K?] are we happy now?

The key point is - EVERYONE has the rights - PERIOD.

And if some other individual or state or whatever choose not to recognize those rights, then doom on them.

Yeesh...

Indeed.

 

[chipbennett]

What? So since I'm an Atheist LEO I'm dangerous? You win the internet with that one.

If you believe that human rights are natural and unalienable, then my comment was not directed at you. If you believe that rights are given and taken away by man, then my comment would apply to you.

Belief in God is not directly required in order to make that differentiation.

 

[Denny347]

If you believe that human rights are natural and unalienable, then my comment was not directed at you. If you believe that rights are given and taken away by man, then my comment would apply to you.

Belief in God is not directly required in order to make that differentiation.

Your wording was misleading. I do believe in natural rights and it has nothing to do with a higher power.

 

[Denny347]

I can rest assured but can you if you are wrong? Just asking.

Yup

 

[Denny347]

For crap's sake... ok ... everyone has inalienable fundamental rights that are given to them by [God | The Great Pumpkin | Scooby Doo | Nature | They are just born with them K?] are we happy now?

The key point is - EVERYONE has the rights - PERIOD.

And if some other individual or state or whatever choose not to recognize those rights, then doom on them.

Yeesh...

Yes. Happy now. My belief, or my lack thereof, in a higher power has no connection to my ability to serve the public as his post suggested. That was my only problem.

 

[chipbennett]

Yes. Happy now. My belief, or my lack thereof, in a higher power has no connection to my ability to serve the public as his post suggested. That was my only problem.

I specifically said "higher power", which I suppose does not require being equated to God/a supreme being. The belief that rights are natural and unalienable (i.e. inherent) is what is important; I'll leave it to you to work out the philosophical implications of their origin. (I think such discussion would tread too closely to INGO-forbidden waters, anyway.)