Jump to content
IGNORED

Justice Scalia says "gun control is heading to Supreme Court"


JuergenG
 Share

Recommended Posts

http://washingtonexaminer.com/article/2521413

Scalia explained why he wrote Heller, but wouldn't discuss current gun control limits in Congress and the states. "There are doubtless cases on the way up," he said, adding that limits on what weapons can be owned will likely be part of any new decision. "There are doubtless limits, but what they are we will see."

Scalia, whose legacy decision in the 2008 case of District of Columbia vs. Heller ended the ban on handguns in Washington, D.C., suggested that the Constitution allows limits on what Americans can own, but the only example he offered was a shoulder-launched rocket that would bring down jets.

Hopefully these cases make it to the Supreme Court before President Obama has a chance to re-design

its composition of judges. Otherwise, this might end up in the biggest challenge to gun rights ever.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hopefully it stays out of the SCOTUS, which is an office in the DoJ... and have tendency lately to hold up administration regulations & policy (which by the way is not law)...

the definition of "arms" is everything the goverment military has and more...

the constitution allows limits on what the people can own and what the citizens can own (which is less than the people)...

the people can own arms, which shall not be infringed or hunting down the illegal goverment will be legit... but only if the people want to and not consent to the infringment, which they did the last 240 years, and therefore is there own fault...

the citizens can only own what their owners from the UNITED STATES allow them to own... as there are no more people and only citizens in the USA... well... "you are free to do as we tell you!"...

but as everyone is citizen to the US in the District of Columbia by his consent... he can take away this consent and again become one of the people of the USA...

RTFM and don't waste time on the dog and pony show called the SCOTUS... because clue is in the f* name:

Supreme Court of the UNITED STATES... not the united States of America... difference...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

hopefully it stays out of the SCOTUS, which is an office in the DoJ...

Complete, utter, total CRAP.

As anyone remotely familiar with the US government (and many others) is well aware, there are THREE (3) branches of government; the Legislative (Congress and the Senate, with Federal bureaucracies), the Executive (the President and executive agencies) and the Judiciary (the Supreme Court, as expressly created by the Constitution). The assertion that the Supreme Court "is an office in the DoJ" (Dept. of Justice) means the author is certainly a fool and, possibly, also a liar who thinks WE are.

the constitution [sic] allows limits on what the people can own and what the citizens can own (which is less than the people)...

More drivel. The Second Amendment itself contains NO such language. Quite the opposite. The Supreme Court said reasonable regulations were permissible, but did not define what those are.

The distinction between "people" and "citizens" is also inverted. Citizens are those who are those people who:

In general: A member of a free city or jural society, (civ-itas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.

- Blacks Law Dictionary

"People' includes NON-citizens present in that nation, such as aliens, tourists, etc. CITIZENS obviously have greater rights - we don't let tourists vote or sit on juries, for example.

....and have tendency lately to hold up administration regulations & policy (which by the way is not law)...

Drivel. Violate a regulation - which is a rule enacted to implement a statute - and tell the court you didn't break the law. Good luck with that.

the citizens can only own what their owners from the UNITED STATES allow them to own...

At which point this post goes from false assertions to pure polemic.

as there are no more people and only citizens in the USA...

This nonsense has already been addressed.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Complete, utter, total CRAP.

As anyone remotely familiar with the US government (and many others) is well aware, there are THREE (3) branches of government; the Legislative (Congress and the Senate, with Federal bureaucracies), the Executive (the President and executive agencies) and the Judiciary (the Supreme Court, as expressly created by the Constitution). The assertion that the Supreme Court "is an office in the DoJ" (Dept. of Justice) means the author is certainly a fool and, possibly, also a liar who thinks WE are.

RTFM...

SCOTUS is part of DoJ...

More drivel. The Second Amendment itself contains NO such language. Quite the opposite. The Supreme Court said reasonable regulations were permissible, but did not define what those are.

RTFM...

The distinction between "people" and "citizens" is also inverted. Citizens are those who are those people who:

In general: A member of a free city or jural society, (civ-itas.) possessing all the rights and privileges which can be enjoyed by any person under its constitution and government, and subject to the corresponding duties.

- Blacks Law Dictionary

RTFM...:

Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution

Section 1. All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside. No State shall make or enforce any law which shall abridge the privileges or immunities of citizens of the United States; nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.

the UNITED STATES are not the united States of America...

the US are an entity that is incorporated in the District of Columbia and only has authority within this and over anyone that is a citizen of the US anywhere...

teh US was established by congress with the Act of 1871 after the the uSA were abandoned after the civil war...

the US copied the constituion of the uSA...

to be incorporated they only had to change the title...

from:

Constitution for the united States of America

to:

Constitution of the United States

Second Amendment

A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and "we the people of the uSA" are not the same as US citizens...

"People' includes NON-citizens present in that nation, such as aliens, tourists, etc. CITIZENS obviously have greater rights - we don't let tourists vote or sit on juries, for example.

no... the people, which is the state have rights... citizens do not have that rights, when the abandon their rights by consent to the US, by becoming citizens of the US...

they fall under the internal regulations of the entity US and so give up there rights that the entity does not give...

That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,

which in Germany is called "Alle Macht geht vom Volke aus" - 'all political power comes from the people/state'...

if you consent to become a citizen of the US, you consent to all the policies, statues and regulations of that entity...

Drivel. Violate a regulation - which is a rule enacted to implement a statute - and tell the court you didn't break the law. Good luck with that.

if you fall under the regulations of a incorporated entity you have to follow their rules and internal resolution system...

but regulation and incorporated policies are not laws... if you are registrated with a insureance company you have to follow their internal regulations as well, to which you consented to... but they are not law...

At which point this post goes from false assertions to pure polemic.

so you do believe the 14A freed the slaves and not just put all persons under new ownership by consent with internal regulations which rule your life within the entity, which by definition makes citizens not free...?

This nonsense has already been addressed.

people have rights... citizens are people that gave up their rights by consent...

just one example...

people of the uSA have a right to vote...

US citizens have to register to vote in the incorporated entity... to register you have to become a citizen of the US... the entity makes up their own rules to vote for their officers...

if you want to have your right under the 2A you have to first remove your consent from the entity to which you abandoned your rights by consent...

the Bill of Rights does not give any rights to the people... it only defines what rights the goverment (which is the incorporated US by consent of the people) can't take without consent...

if you let the goverment take your arms without you resisting this unlegal act, you give your consent, which makes it legal for you...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

And the willful assertion of nonsense continues:

RTFM...

SCOTUS is part of DoJ...

I have. And your claim that a Constitutionally-created court is "part of" a department that did not even exist at the time the Constitution was, is and remains utter horses**t. "RTFM" yourself:

Article III.

Section. 1.

<a name="3.1.1">The judicial Power of the United States shall be vested in one supreme Court, and in such inferior Courts as the Congress may from time to time ordain and establish. The Judges, both of the supreme and inferior Courts, shall hold their Offices during good Behaviour, and shall, at stated Times, receive for their Services a Compensation, which shall not be diminished during their Continuance in Office.

the UNITED STATES are not the united States of America...

the US are an entity that is incorporated in the District of Columbia and only has authority within this and over anyone that is a citizen of the US anywhere...

teh US was established by congress with the Act of 1871 after the the uSA were abandoned after the civil war...

The claim that the USA was "incorporated in the District of Columbia" is another fabrication from whole cloth by a deluded mind. The Capitol District did not even exist until four years AFTER the Constitution was ratified. Further, incorporation requires an authority to incorporate under. In other words, Sheepshooter wants us to believe the US incorporated under rules of an entity - itself - that also did not yet exist.

This proclaimed sea-change under "the [utterly unidentified] Act of 1871" is unsupported by the existence of this supposedly altered document - on display in the capitol. Nor would there be. The states composing the CSA left the USA. Those states petitioned for and were granted RE-admission to the USA. Period.

For our European friends, who are probably confused by all this, SS is one of those "natural rights" zealots. I used to see them at the Registry of Deeds (land records), where they would occasionally wander in with bizarre documents renouncing their birth certificates and declaring themselves "natural persons" and "citizens of the world," not subject to the laws of the US. As with SS, the logic was tortured (the doctor who signed the birth certificate was an Agent of the State who, by signing, enslaved them to it, which is why the attempt to retroactively revoke it). They usually contained lots of Latin phrases pulled from old law dictionaries, like "sui generis," "nunc pro tunc" and "in pro per" to make the drivel sound impressive. They were always very entertaining.

Those who remember Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing will recall that McVeigh and his happy band did not carry drivers licenses and had no license plates on their vehicles. It was another manifestation of their rejection of state authority and was a red flag for police. Blowing up an entire building in the center of the state capitol was part of their anti-government manifesto.

consent by ignorance is still consent...

And ignorance is always ignorance, with or without consent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I have. And your claim that a Constitutionally-created court is "part of" a department that did not even exist at the time the Constitution was, is and remains utter horses**t. "RTFM" yourself:

still the SCOTUS is below DoJ is below US executive...

The claim that the USA was "incorporated in the District of Columbia" is another fabrication from whole cloth by a deluded mind. The Capitol District did not even exist until four years AFTER the Constitution was ratified. Further, incorporation requires an authority to incorporate under. In other words, Sheepshooter wants us to believe the US incorporated under rules of an entity - itself - that also did not yet exist.

the congress (44th ???) of 1871 made the incorporated Goverment of the District of Columbia which is now known as the UNITED STATES... it has juristiction over its land (10mile DC Area) and any land bought by consent of the states and anyone that is registered citizen of the UNITED STATES in DC...

which as meantioned can read in the 14A...

by the way a "person" is not "the people" or not neccesary a human being... person is an entity (persona) that makes contracts with other entity...

oh and by the way the uSA is not the US, so saying that the uSA was incorporated in 1871 is false as this State existed befor the US was incorporated...

oh and by the way the US is not the only incorporated goverment in the uSA... most big citys in the uSA are incorporated under own govermental rule, which allowes them to exclude the sheriff of the county, which normaly is the law of the land in the uSA...

This proclaimed sea-change under "the [utterly unidentified] Act of 1871" is unsupported by the existence of this supposedly altered document - on display in the capitol.

well the document you are refering to is in a museum... and is the the founding documents of the uSA not the US...

Nor would there be. The states composing the CSA left the USA. Those states petitioned for and were granted RE-admission to the USA. Period.

yeah... like Poland joined the 3.Reich after it was military defeated...

...not subject to the laws of the US...

All persons born or naturalized in the United States, and subject to the jurisdiction thereof, are citizens of the United States and of the State wherein they reside.

Those who remember Timothy McVeigh and the Oklahoma City bombing will recall that McVeigh and his happy band did not carry drivers licenses and had no license plates on their vehicles. It was another manifestation of their rejection of state authority and was a red flag for police. Blowing up an entire building in the center of the state capitol was part of their anti-government manifesto.

a very nobel lie...

And ignorance is always ignorance, with or without consent.

if the lie is noble, ignorance is strength... right my strong freind...?!?!

by the way keep your fallacies to yourself... the only show ignorance...

Sovereign Citizen

sovereign and citizen are mutually exclusive...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

by the way keep your fallacies to yourself... the only show ignorance...

Strong words, (un)supported by more than weak drivel.

sovereign and citizen are mutually exclusive...

Whoa, that wouldn't even fly in the most libertarian circles.

Edited by JuergenG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Strong words, (un)supported by more than weak drivel.
...is another fabrication from whole cloth by a deluded mind.

An ad hominem (Latin for "to the man" or "to the person"), short for argumentum ad hominem, is an argument made personally against an opponent instead of against their argument. Ad hominem reasoning is normally described as an informal fallacy, more precisely an irrelevance.

Whoa, that wouldn't even fly in the most libertarian circles.

Citizen is a person who by place of birth, nationality of one or both parents, or by going through the naturalization process has sworn loyalty to a nation.

Sovereignty is the power of a state [which is a person] to do everything necessary to govern itself, such as making, executing, and applying laws; imposing and collecting taxes; making war and peace; and forming treaties or engaging in commerce with foreign nations.

a citizen cannot be a sovereign, because he has given loyality to another entity - the nation, goverment, state, State - which has juristriction over him...

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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed,...

nothing to read there about persons or citizens...

(hu)man has the right to be sovereign for himself...

and only if he consents to Goverment and gives up some of his rights he by definition and the 14A for example could become for example become a person how is a citizen to a goverment which has sovereignty over him...

by the way... in the uSA the US now have officially have the power by consent to infringe on the right to life of their citizens by killing them domesticly without trial on the land of the uSA...

can only happen if human give up their right to life by consent to the killer...

to protect their human rights the people need to be armed...

unfortuantly citizens of the US for example to not have the right to arms as normal people do, because they gave their consent to be under the juristiction of the US which does not recognize this right of the people for their citizens... that is why their are gun laws in the uSA, because the US and its States have the juristiction by consent of the governed to infringe on that right...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

to protect their human rights the people need to be armed...

Absolutely. NO argument there.

unfortuantly [sic] citizens of the US for example to not have the right to arms as normal people do, because they gave their consent to be under the juristiction [sic] of the US which does not recognize this right of the people for their citizens... that is why their [sic] are gun laws in the uSA, because the US and its States have the juristiction [sic] by consent of the governed to infringe on that right...

Guess you missed the express recognition of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment. Or the recent recognition of that right by the Supreme Court (which you continue to willfully misrepresent as being "below the DoJ is below the executive") in both Heller and McDonald. AND the application of those decisions in Illinois and Maryland.fs

Oh - how many other countries expressly preserve their citizens' rights to bear arms?

Enjoy your kool-aid. You are not worth any more of my time.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Guess you missed the express recognition of the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment.

what do you not understand between "infringed" and "consent"...?

the peoples right to arms shall not be infringed... but if the people consent to it it is not infringement...

that is why their are Gun-USCodes... that is why the right of the people to arms in the uSA is massivly infringed already... by the consent of the people who all became citizens of the US and therefore fall under the juristriction of its codes...

Or the recent recognition of that right by the Supreme Court

oh thank you very much, that the SCOTUS gave you your rights...

unfortuantly they don't...

but if you believe so, than what would be if their next decision is not, lets say, in the peoples interest...?!?!

will the people just say that the SCOTUS take them their rights and that it is ok, like they always do...?!?!

by the way... it is called SCOTUS and not SCOTUSA...

Oh - how many other countries expressly preserve their citizens' rights to bear arms?

atleast not the uSA or the US... which is easy to see if you understand the bill of rights...

bill of rights says what the goverment cannot do... otherwise the people will rise up and abolish the goverment (unfortuantly they are too happy to be sheepeople)...

but the goverment nowhere gave that right or wants to preserve it... and the goverment is very unhappy that it is limited... but hopefully the Sheepeople do not mind if the goverment infringes on their rights just a little bit... like boiling a frog...

Enjoy your kool-aid. You are not worth any more of my time.

well kool-aid is goverment propaganda... you are the only one here "trinking" it...

and by the way, what is your time worth...? cant be much if you don't know your rights that you can use in it...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

If you knew about EJER Fuchs' background or him in person, you had to realize that you're utterly wrong.

He has done and is still doing way more for gun owners, than you ever will. Believe me, only once.

I cannot... not to an appeal to authority... because that is a fallacy...

and believing is self-delusion...

and therefore you should start to think for yourself and don't let others do it for you...

otherwise let them also speak for you... Nuhr mal so...

and for someone that is "doing more for gunowners than you ever will" he seems to have no idea about gun laws and rights and goverment system... so how good should his work be and for whom...?

someone that does not understand the 2A can do nothing to protect rights...

taking a look at our current situation we are here because he did "more"... thank you... not...

like the NRA when they helped establish the Gun Act of 68 to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms of the black community... just copied the Nazi gun laws... and who came up with background checks and Gun Free Schools Zones...?!?!

atleast they are now coming around, away from hunter and sportshooter lobbying back to "we the people" gunowners...

but it could be that the damage these "persons, who did more for gunowners than you ever will" have made cannot be reversed peacefully and only through the 2A...

but one look at the NRA Psychotesting that the administration is now enforcing on their citizens shows that does "champions of gunowners" are the true enemy of an armed people...

but by all means, please do go to your physician and tell him about your interest in firearms...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

He has done and is still doing way more for gun owners, than you ever will. Believe me, only once.

Reading his posts, it seems to me that he has done harm to gun ownership at a same scale like the so-called German "Waffenlobby".

Link to comment
Share on other sites

and therefore you should start to think for yourself and don't let others do it for you...

otherwise let them also speak for you... Nuhr mal so...

I don't need anyone to think or talk for me!

and for someone that is "doing more for gunowners than you ever will" he seems to have no idea about gun laws and rights and goverment system... so how good should his work be and for whom...?

someone that does not understand the 2A can do nothing to protect rights...

taking a look at our current situation we are here because he did "more"... thank you... not...

You don't have a friggin' clue of what you're talking about.

but by all means, please do go to your physician and tell him about your interest in firearms...

Care to elaborate?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I don't need anyone to think or talk for me!

than do not hide behind someone else... if Fuchs is that great person, than tell what he did - which is than what you did not - or tell what you think and not what others think...

You don't have a friggin' clue of what you're talking about.

funny you say that so easliy considering your shown lack of knowledge on the issue of the gun debate in the uSA...:

Care to elaborate?

the Obama administration/regime has issued 23 Executive Actions under it's authority to bypass congree in war times...

I highlight you the ones that my comments are concernd with...:

1. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal agencies to make relevant data available to the federal background check system.

2. Address unnecessary legal barriers, particularly relating to the Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act, that may prevent states from making information available to the background check system.

3. Improve incentives for states to share information with the background check system.

More In Guns

4. Direct the Attorney General to review categories of individuals prohibited from having a gun to make sure dangerous people are not slipping through the cracks.

5. Propose rulemaking to give law enforcement the ability to run a full background check on an individual before returning a seized gun.

6. Publish a letter from ATF to federally licensed gun dealers providing guidance on how to run background checks for private sellers.

7. Launch a national safe and responsible gun ownership campaign.

8. Review safety standards for gun locks and gun safes (Consumer Product Safety Commission).

9. Issue a Presidential Memorandum to require federal law enforcement to trace guns recovered in criminal investigations.

10. Release a DOJ report analyzing information on lost and stolen guns and make it widely available to law enforcement.

11. Nominate an ATF director.

12. Provide law enforcement, first responders, and school officials with proper training for active shooter situations.

13. Maximize enforcement efforts to prevent gun violence and prosecute gun crime.

14. Issue a Presidential Memorandum directing the Centers for Disease Control to research the causes and prevention of gun violence.

15. Direct the Attorney General to issue a report on the availability and most effective use of new gun safety technologies and challenge the private sector to develop innovative technologies.

16. Clarify that the Affordable Care Act does not prohibit doctors asking their patients about guns in their homes.

17. Release a letter to health care providers clarifying that no federal law prohibits them from reporting threats of violence to law enforcement authorities.

18. Provide incentives for schools to hire school resource officers.

19. Develop model emergency response plans for schools, houses of worship and institutions of higher education.

20. Release a letter to state health officials clarifying the scope of mental health services that Medicaid plans must cover.

21. Finalize regulations clarifying essential health benefits and parity requirements within ACA exchanges.

22. Commit to finalizing mental health parity regulations.

23. Launch a national dialogue led by Secretaries Sebelius and Duncan on mental health.

(I hope you also did not miss the line concerning the gun Sperrelemente)

so your physician is now not only abel but responsible to report you to the "health authorities" which will share there info on you with other administration departments going into your background checks...

your physiscian is not needed to tell you that he gives medical information to other entities without your consent, nor has this information be fact on your real medical conditions... if he has the "feeling" you are mentaly sick he should report...

also because of USAPATRIOT and NDAA you are not allowed to know...

and your physiscian will be held liable if he does not tells his concerns about your mental health and you commit a crime with an firearm and are found to be mentaly ill... so he has an incentive to report you, even if he has to make things up, just to not be liable for your doings...

by the way, the liberals think that anyone that wants or has a firearm is mentaly ill...

so next time you come from your physiscian and go to the gun store the background check comes up negative and you don't get a gun...

oh and by the way... this is not infriniging on the right of the people, but on your individual rights (which you don't have concerning gun ownership), so is perfectly legal...

and if you think your NRA will help you... well they came up with the idea that mentally ill persons should not get a gun... and they won't help you, because they don't want to get associated with mentally ill persons...

thank GOD that you are a citizen under US juristriction...

and now what happens...?

well it happens...

the gun owners that know the codes and regulations are not going to their physiscian anymore...

and the nut jobs in planning the next shooting spree are already not going to a doctor...

the only stupid NRA people that think of themselve as mentally healthy still go to the doctor and will loose their right to arms individually... because someone else think the are nuts...

and guess what... not only the NRA in the uSA thinks of this as a good idea...

the German (not so much) "Gun-Lobbys" have the same stupid idea and proposing their "Psycho-Test"...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you that I participated in discussions of the above on a U.S. board as soon as it was published.

Some, if not most, is cosmetic and won't change a thing. Obama knows that as well as he knows he will not

succeed with Federal legislation, due to a) the House majority of the GOP and b ) several Dem senators being

afraid to walk the party line as they fear for re-election.

This is why his close followers came/come up with the most restrictive bills in the States. They'll succeed with

a lot of crap in deep blue States such as NY, NJ, CA, MA, likely CO, whereas in red/swing States these bills won't

have a chance to even enter a committee, let alone pass.

As to

(I hope you also did not miss the line concerning the gun Sperrelemente blocking devices [FIFY])

Well noticed and I brought up the company behind it in same discussions.

As to

than [sic] do not hide behind someone else... if Fuchs is that great person [sic], than [sic] tell what he did - which is than [sic]

what you did not - or tell what you think and not what others think...

I can tell you that he is an attorney practicing law in the U.S., working closely with several pro-2A organizations.

BTW, it's no my NRA, or would you know of NRA driven activities pertaining to gun rights in this country?

Other than this, save your arrogance! This is the WRONG place for it. This is also NOT your personal soap

box for spewing the most absurd political theories. Hope, you get it.

Edited by JuergenG
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I can tell you that I participated in discussions of the above on a U.S. board as soon as it was published.

and I was on ShotShow with the industry and talked about it the moment it came out...

and even there were the same not so far sighted persons that you descripe from forums...

but still, US juristriction males this EA law of the land within the administration... what practically means that it is enforced already...

you can still tell yourself and your aerican friends that "it can't happen here"... but it already happend...

if you not heard of it already the US are revoking the arms rights of the Veterans right now...

I can tell you that he is an attorney practicing law in the U.S., working closely with several pro-2A organizations.

which the NRA is non... and he is a US law merchant... playing by their juristriction... and learn what they wanted him to learn...

still makes it an authority fallacy for you...

BTW, it's no my NRA, or would you know of NRA driven activities pertaining to gun rights in this country?

atleast you begin to show your dislike of the anti-gun policies of the NRA... atleast that is something positive to see... to think on your own...

Other than this, save your arrogance! This is the WRONG place for it. This is also NOT your personal soap

box for spewing the most absurd political theories. Hope, you get it.

if they were "most absurd" you would bring more to the topic than fallacies...

and when I see what you are telling gebuesch... you want that we "get it", that you lack in arguments, but wield the power of administration and so are able to censor and hide arguments different from your own that are dangerouse for your persona / avatar...

so whgat you are telling us is that your are unable to discuss here and will choose the right of might when you "loose" the argument, as you surely do right now...

and if you do use your administrative force in this way you only show everyone that you are in the wrong...

so go ahead...

or understand, that you are here not as an administrator, but currently as nothing more than person in a discussion, like everyone else is here... and that you may have the power in your Personalunion, but not the right and most certainly no argument deriving from it...

and by wielding this power you only show your personal weakness and that you are not qualified to wield such power, which you show to use inappropriately, and therefore should be stripped of...

oh and by the way... your threat is a so called argumentum ad baculum... yet again a fallacy...

and also by the way... it is tyranny...

Power corrupts, and absolute power corrupts absolutely. - Lord Acton

It is not power that corrupts but fear. Fear of losing power corrupts those who wield it and fear of the scourge of power corrupts those who are subject to it. - Aung San Suu Kyi

It is said that power corrupts, but actually it's more true that power attracts the corruptible. The sane are usually attracted by other things than power. - David Brin

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information

Terms of Use
Privacy Policy
Guidelines
We have placed cookies on your device to help make this website better. You can adjust your cookie settings, otherwise we'll assume you're okay to continue.