Coulter NAILS it ...

Benanov · Jul 18, 2013

kcbrown said:
Therefore, you need to explicitly justify the removal of the liberty of the people you speak of.

+1

The problem is that liberty then becomes a tragedy of the commons - everyone has it, no one's invested in it until parts of it start to be stripped away. However, since liberty's not really a finite resource the analogy doesn't exactly work perfectly, but it's the best I can come up with.

I never had civics in High School. I always feel like I missed something.

JAY1234 · Jul 18, 2013

LiberalClassic said:
Schizophrenics have committed how many mass shootings compared with others? Locking people up because they might commit crime is like banning guns because they might be used in crime.

People such as the one in the article appears to be certifiably mentally deficient. No one is advocating throwing someone in a mental hospital due to allegations. Only ones who are certified mentally ill by more than one professional should ever be institutionalized. Institutionalizing a certified mentally ill person serves two purposes. 1) It provides protection for the person institutionalized and 2) if said person has a propensity for violence, it serves to protect potential victims of said violence. A "lady" defecating on herself, stripping to her birthday, and doing drugs is not what I would consider normal behavior.

As far as how many "schizophrenics have committed mass murders; who knows, since most commit suicide prior to capture.

EL1227 · Jul 18, 2013

kcbrown said:
Again, the way you say this implies that you view liberty as something to be given, rather than something to be taken away.

You see, the nature of liberty is such that, as something that exists until removed by force, one needs to have specific justification to strip someone of it. To say otherwise, i.e. to say that stripping someone of their liberty is something that can properly be done without justification, is to favor tyranny. For tyranny is precisely what arbitrary, unjustified removal of liberty is.

As such, when asking about someone who steps foot here, the question you're really asking is this: is there justification for forcibly stripping such a person of their liberties?

So there are no "magic criteria" for "allowing" someone to keep their liberty. There are only criteria for removing said liberty.

Therefore, you need to explicitly justify the removal of the liberty of the people you speak of.

Are you implying that the Preamble of the Constitution be applied to non-citizens ?

Preamble to the United States Constitution

We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America

Just askin' ?

kcbrown · Jul 18, 2013

EL1227 said:
Are you implying that the Preamble of the Constitution be applied to non-citizens ?

Preamble to the United States Constitution

Not necessarily (although our laws are structured such that it's precisely what we do. See below). I'm implying that the very notion of applying that part of the Preamble to non-citizens is itself probably a misunderstanding of the nature of liberty.

What the preamble is actually referring to there is twofold:

the notion that the purpose of government is to protect liberty
the notion that the government must be structured in such a way as to prevent the government itself from improperly infringing upon liberty.

The way the government is supposed to do the first is by ensuring that individuals who trample upon the liberties of another are penalized for it.

So when the Constitution talks about "securing the blessings of liberty", it means ensuring individuals retain their liberty in the face of the actions of others.

As such, the question you ask here is tantamount to asking whether the government should restrain the citizenry from acting as individuals to infringe upon the liberties of non-citizens. The way our laws are structured is such that we, as a society, have already answered that question with a "yes". For instance, it is illegal to murder a non-citizen and citizen alike. Most laws make no distinction between the victim of a crime being a citizen or non-citizen.

Not_an_outlaw · Jul 18, 2013

aquaman said:
lol. no one is going to wake up in this country until they have no internet,tv,food and heat/AC

Don't forget to add Walmart.

EL1227 · Jul 19, 2013

kcbrown said:
Not necessarily (although our laws are structured such that it's precisely what we do. See below). I'm implying that the very notion of applying that part of the Preamble to non-citizens is itself probably a misunderstanding of the nature of liberty.

What the preamble is actually referring to there is twofold:

the notion that the purpose of government is to protect liberty

the notion that the government must be structured in such a way as to prevent the government itself from improperly infringing upon liberty.

The way the government is supposed to do the first is by ensuring that individuals who trample upon the liberties of another are penalized for it.

So when the Constitution talks about "securing the blessings of liberty", it means ensuring individuals retain their liberty in the face of the actions of others.

As such, the question you ask here is tantamount to asking whether the government should restrain the citizenry from acting as individuals to infringe upon the liberties of non-citizens. The way our laws are structured is such that we, as a society, have already answered that question with a "yes". For instance, it is illegal to murder a non-citizen and citizen alike. Most laws make no distinction between the victim of a crime being a citizen or non-citizen.

Sorry, but it starts with "We the People ..." meaning citizens. Your arguments regarding infringement of liberties and murders of non-citizens have absolutely NO bearing on who the 'blessings of liberty' are bestowed by those three words.

All of which you have noted so far is progressive double-speak as far as I'm concerned. Not linking US citizenship with our liberties as defined is tantamount to saying that the Constitution isn't a defining sovereign document and that we should allow the UN or the world court to make and enforce our laws, open our borders to all who wish to enter, and concede self-government to those who never pledged their allegiance and fidelity to that sacred document.

So with that I'll say goodnight, and ... Where's my stamp ?

kcbrown · Jul 20, 2013

EL1227 said:
Sorry, but it starts with "We the People ..." meaning citizens. Your arguments regarding infringement of liberties and murders of non-citizens have absolutely NO bearing on who the 'blessings of liberty' are bestowed by those three words.

The operative word in the preamble as applied to liberty is the verb secure. That inherently recognizes that liberty already exists, and that the purpose of the government defined by the Constitution is to secure it for the citizenry, which means to ensure its continued existence and to protect against its diminishment.

So again, your argument here boils down to the notion that the U.S. government acts to secure liberty only for its citizens. That certainly is what the preamble says. But that does not change the nature of liberty. If the government is going to remove the liberties of a non-citizen without any justification, that is tyranny ("arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power"), even though it is limited in scope.

But in the very same sentence, you say the blessings of liberty are "bestowed", meaning "presented or conferred as a gift". So right away, you contradict the very thing that the Constitution itself recognizes in the very passage you're depending on: that liberty is not something that is missing until given, but instead is something that is present until taken away.

All of which you have noted so far is progressive double-speak as far as I'm concerned.

For it to be doublespeak, I have to be using definitions of words in a way opposite of their actual meaning. Please show where I am doing that.

Not linking US citizenship with our liberties as defined is tantamount to saying that the Constitution isn't a defining sovereign document and that we should allow the UN or the world court to make and enforce our laws, open our borders to all who wish to enter, and concede self-government to those who never pledged their allegiance and fidelity to that sacred document.

No, that doesn't follow at all. All I've done is note that our laws as they are written generally do not distinguish between citizen and non-citizen. Nothing says they can't, and indeed there are some that explicitly do.

None of that contradicts the fact that liberty is something that exists until explicitly taken away by force. You can play games with the wording of the Constitution until you're blue in the face, but that fact remains nonetheless, and it has implications.

It's not my fault that you don't like the implications, but they are there nonetheless.

If I've made errors of fact, please show them. If I've made errors of logic, please show them as well. But if you cannot show either, then you should concede the argument.

EL1227 · Jul 20, 2013

kcbrown said:
The operative word in the preamble as applied to liberty is the verb secure. That inherently recognizes that liberty already exists, and that the purpose of the government defined by the Constitution is to secure it for the citizenry, which means to ensure its continued existence and to protect against its diminishment.

So again, your argument here boils down to the notion that the U.S. government acts to secure liberty only for its citizens. That certainly is what the preamble says. But that does not change the nature of liberty. If the government is going to remove the liberties of a non-citizen without any justification, that is tyranny ("arbitrary or unrestrained exercise of power"), even though it is limited in scope.

But in the very same sentence, you say the blessings of liberty are "bestowed", meaning "presented or conferred as a gift". So right away, you contradict the very thing that the Constitution itself recognizes in the very passage you're depending on: that liberty is not something that is missing until given, but instead is something that is present until taken away.

For it to be doublespeak, I have to be using definitions of words in a way opposite of their actual meaning. Please show where I am doing that.

No, that doesn't follow at all. All I've done is note that our laws as they are written generally do not distinguish between citizen and non-citizen. Nothing says they can't, and indeed there are some that explicitly do.

None of that contradicts the fact that liberty is something that exists until explicitly taken away by force. You can play games with the wording of the Constitution until you're blue in the face, but that fact remains nonetheless, and it has implications.

It's not my fault that you don't like the implications, but they are there nonetheless.

If I've made errors of fact, please show them. If I've made errors of logic, please show them as well. But if you cannot show either, then you should concede the argument.

Here's my answer ...

You continue to twist words and cloud the issue with non-facts. The words you use have nothing to do with those in the Constitution. If you insist on references from me, start by providing some of your own besides dictionary look-ups.

Nothing is conceded ...

Gryphon · Jul 20, 2013

t84a said:
The bad news: everyone hates Ann Coulter. I wish someone more credible would step up.

Couldn't disagree more, and those that dislike her do so because they are frustrated and unable to come up with good rebuttal - so they call her names like "conservative stick" which does little more than expose their own moronic, emotion based, illogical positions. I don't agree with everything she has to say, but I like her straight forward no nonsense delivery - its refreshing compared to most of the BS we are fed on a daily basis.

kcbrown · Jul 20, 2013

EL1227 said:
Here's my answer ...

You continue to twist words and cloud the issue with non-facts. The words you use have nothing to do with those in the Constitution. If you insist on references from me, start by providing some of your own besides dictionary look-ups.

Nothing is conceded ...

I'm not asking for external references from you or anything like that, merely that you back your claims about my arguments with something more than mere assertion.

Because it's your claim that I'm using "non-facts" and that I'm twisting words, it's now on you to show where.

Please do so.

Simply asserting such isn't sufficient for proper debate.

EL1227 · Jul 20, 2013

kcbrown said:
I'm not asking for external references from you or anything like that, merely that you back your claims about my arguments with something more than mere assertion.

Because it's your claim that I'm using "non-facts" and that I'm twisting words, it's now on you to show where.

Please do so.

Simply asserting such isn't sufficient for proper debate.

And simply rattling off words without concrete proof is speaking one's opinion. Opinions are like a-holes, everybody has at least one.

I'm done ... :sign03:

kcbrown · Jul 20, 2013

EL1227 said:
And simply rattling off words without concrete proof is speaking one's opinion. Opinions are like a-holes, everybody has at least one.

Concrete proof of what? I cited the definitions I'm using. The text of the Constitution is plain for all to see and is what I'm going by directly. I'm arriving at the conclusions I do through straightforward logic.

What, exactly, is there to prove here?

I have absolutely no problem with corrections to anything I've said, but simply asserting that I'm incorrect without showing how and why just won't do.

But hey, if you want to bow out now, that's your right.

Al Norris · Jul 21, 2013

KCBrown and I don't see eye-to-eye on an awful lot of things. But this is one of those rare times where we do see things, somewhat the same.

Everybody seems to forget certain things, when we start discussing the founding principles of this country... Things like, natural rights. Natural rights was a philosophy that John Locke defined in his "Second Treatise on Government." It was a philosophy that our founders knew very well and agreed with. It was also part and parcel of the structure they tried to provide for, within the constitution.

Those are the things that every person is born with. Thomas Jefferson declared those rights, when he penned the Declaration Of Independence; ... "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Although, John Locke called that last, "the right to Property." Fact is, "self-defense" in Lockean terms is the defense of property, our own bodies... If we don't own our own body, we own nothing.

When we read, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union," what the founding fathers are saying is that, "We, the individual peoples of the various States, United together, in order to form a union, more in harmony than that which we had under the articles of confederation..." etc., etc.

The fact that the words, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," fall into that preamble, merely proves the Lockean principles, as that is the sole purpose of any government, under Locke's treatise: To guard the rights of its peoples. Such a government is a "just" government.

Alienage however, was a philosophy that said, "no one not under the dominion of a government, had the same rights as its citizens." Alienage was an ancient construct and carried over to the U.S. until the enactment of the 14th amendment. You want to see Alienage laws in practice? Go read Dred Scott. That was a ruling, as despicable as it seems today, that was steeped not just in racism, as much as it was in alienage.

So yes, EL1227, you are correct in your beliefs... But only up to the enactment of the 14th amendment. After that, alienage was addressed and lawful aliens are accorded the same rights as any citizen. More importantly, even unlawful aliens are accorded the same due process rights as citizens: "... 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 Constitution is not a smorgasbord, where we get to pick and choose what parts we like.

sxs · Jul 21, 2013

jpo183 said:
I dont like Coutler shes annoying to listen to. She gets some facts right but then she will go on and just rant to rant.

When she was endorsing Chrstie I was just shaking my head. I believe she IS part of the republican establishment and sees nothing wrong with it. Just like Hannity. (cant stand him after listening to his radio show)

I like to hear good educated arguments, but on their radio shows you actually hear the type of people they are, and they resort to the same tactics as a lot of liberals, name calling, etc.

Coutler is right though with all of this, the problem is immigration the rest are symptoms.

She gets the great majority of her facts straight. Her problem is that she seems to revel in making sarcastic and shocking pejorative statements...and it's that over the top stuff that rubs some of us on her side the wrong way. But it does help sell her books and get her on a variety of new op programs.

Stevel Knievel · Jul 22, 2013

Ann Coulter is another NeoCon tool offering up lip service punditry.

EL1227 · Jul 23, 2013

Al Norris said:
KCBrown and I don't see eye-to-eye on an awful lot of things. But this is one of those rare times where we do see things, somewhat the same.

Everybody seems to forget certain things, when we start discussing the founding principles of this country... Things like, natural rights. Natural rights was a philosophy that John Locke defined in his "Second Treatise on Government." It was a philosophy that our founders knew very well and agreed with. It was also part and parcel of the structure they tried to provide for, within the constitution.

Those are the things that every person is born with. Thomas Jefferson declared those rights, when he penned the Declaration Of Independence; ... "Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness." Although, John Locke called that last, "the right to Property." Fact is, "self-defense" in Lockean terms is the defense of property, our own bodies... If we don't own our own body, we own nothing.

When we read, "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union," what the founding fathers are saying is that, "We, the individual peoples of the various States, United together, in order to form a union, more in harmony than that which we had under the articles of confederation..." etc., etc.

The fact that the words, "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity," fall into that preamble, merely proves the Lockean principles, as that is the sole purpose of any government, under Locke's treatise: To guard the rights of its peoples. Such a government is a "just" government.

Alienage however, was a philosophy that said, "no one not under the dominion of a government, had the same rights as its citizens." Alienage was an ancient construct and carried over to the U.S. until the enactment of the 14th amendment. You want to see Alienage laws in practice? Go read Dred Scott. That was a ruling, as despicable as it seems today, that was steeped not just in racism, as much as it was in alienage.

So yes, EL1227, you are correct in your beliefs... But only up to the enactment of the 14th amendment. After that, alienage was addressed and lawful aliens are accorded the same rights as any citizen. More importantly, even unlawful aliens are accorded the same due process rights as citizens: "... 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 Constitution is not a smorgasbord, where we get to pick and choose what parts we like.

Thanks Al, I respect your input. I guess my opinion is valid only until 1868, with a few SCOTUS decisions thereafter.

AFA a constitutional smorgasbord, I think that you would agree that recent SCOTUS decisions, and not my ramblings, have made it so.

I wasn't questioning 'due process' or 'equal protection' clauses of 14, but tried to hone in on the citizenship issue; something that was lost in translation with KC I guess. The 14th Amendment covers a LOT of ground and has been used and abused many times, with the citizenship part still being tested ... if you get my drift. :innocent0

EL1227 · Sep 25, 2013

Her latest ...

HumanEvents.com -
Cruz Control should be standard on GOP models

They tell us guns won’t protect us — and then we find out the loudest of them all have armed guards. Staunch gun-control advocate Mayor Richard Daley of Chicago had three armed guards with him at all times, as well as an armored car. Mayor Rahm Emanuel also has armed guards and an armored car.

Chicago aldermen are allowed to carry any guns they like. But until very recently (we hope!) the people of Chicago were virtually prohibited from being armed.

And that's not all ... Read on.

lawrencewendall · Sep 25, 2013

EL1227 said:
HumanEvents.com -
Cruz Control should be standard on GOP models

And that's not all ... Read on.

Never been a fan of her but once again she nailed it!. I like her more and more each day.

EL1227 · Nov 21, 2013

Just words ... Coulter's latest

She comes to his defense on HumanEvents.com -
Alec Baldwin vs. Liberal Bullies

WOW ... I would have never thought I would hear this from her, but ...

Conservatives attacking Baldwin for his latest fit of (justified) anger are being small-time and shortsighted. You think this sets liberals back? They don’t care about Baldwin. You’re just reinforcing their worldview, where careers are ended over a word.

Alec Baldwin: Victim of feminism.

That isn’t the rule of law; it’s the rule of bullies.

Conservatives believe people have a right to be left alone, whether from the word police, the government or delusional nuts, no matter how much they want “closure.” But most of all, conservatives don’t think the rules apply only to our political opponents — a liberal trademark, borrowed from the feminists.

We {should} apply our principles even to people whose politics we dislike.

So, save our rants for liberal actions and, like Coulter uses very effectively, store away their hateful words for a cataclysmic torrent of proof-points later.

Liberals don’t mind abortion, sexual promiscuity, adultery, lying or criminal behavior. They save all their moral indignation for people who use politically incorrect words. Instead of simply filing this one away under “Liberal Hypocrisy” for future use, conservatives are validating the left’s next attack on a conservative.

Which is another way of saying "an elephant never forgets". Or in the current urban slang ... "paybacks are a biatch".

Scratch · Nov 21, 2013

Back to the OP article: Coulter didn't "nail" it.

If anyone in Washington dares to reference "reducing gun violence" in the context of advocating more proactive mental health measures in this country, the NRA and 2A crowd go apeshit and see it as a backdoor plot to take away our guns. The two cannot be mentioned in the same breath.

Coulter NAILS it ...

The #1 community for Gun Owners of the Northeast

Member Benefits:

PM Bomber

Retired Radioman Chief

R.I.P.

Super Genius

Ultimate Member

R.I.P.

Attachments

Super Genius

R.I.P.

Attachments

inveniam viam aut faciam

Super Genius

R.I.P.

Super Genius

Spud Head

Senior Member

Active Member

R.I.P.

R.I.P.

Been There, Done That

R.I.P.

Attachments

Banned

Users who are viewing this thread

Log in

Forum statistics