Everything is NOT negotiable

And, note how Capitol insurrectionists are shrugged off as a kegger gone bad but it's cool for cops to kill people of color for less provocation.

They all seem to have that wishy-washy double standard based on one's race, creed, color, sexuality and religious affiliation.

 

It's amazing that no matter what is said, some will immediately set out to take exception and oppose it.

My post's intention is not to say that there are things that can't be negotiated, but that there are things a person must never allow to be negotiable, and cannot retain if they do.
These are the core values that define us- honor, self-respect, integrity.

If you wish to be a person of integrity, then the values related to that must be consistently upheld. Once you begin to negotiate them, you are no longer a person of integrity.
Thus the very act of negotiating integrity destroys it. You can negotiate it- but if you do, you destroy it and you lose it.
IF you wish to be a person of integrity- IF you ARE a person of integrity- then your integrity is not negotiable.

IF you believe everything is negotiable---- YOU; your value, your self-respect, your integrity, your honor, your freedom, your identity- are all on the table, and all have a price.
These can be negotiable to you- Or NOT. This is the choice of being a person... or a property.

There are people whose objective is to convince you that your value IS negotiable. The goal is to diminish you- to make them feel superior without them having to excel and be superior.
They only win and wind up controlling you- if you are for sale.

Some of the arguments here assume you are..... that we all are. Wrong.

 

Poor memory?

 

Keep talking in circles.
Its entertaining

 

You're wrong about covid vaccines, the effectiveness of respirators, how the economic system works, public education, and dang near everything else you propagandize the forum about.

 

Everybody who engages with you is wrong about everything. Only you know the truth.
Yeah, we know.
And the confirmation lies in the fact that less than 27% of posters can actually agree with you.
On anything. Which we all know tells the real story
Don't we

 

Forums these days have a lot of people like you who huddle against the wind with their fellow travelers, spending time hitting the "like" button to provide encouragement.

You don't.

 

Why your anti-abortion position can never win.

 

You can whine about it all you want.
The numbers speak for themselves
The majority of posters (Left and Right) don't find your claims believable.

 

You don't like facts so you're in good company.

 

You said all laws, and all things are negotiable. Well, that would make sense, why you'd be an American Democrat voter.

and support American Democrat politicians that think the same way.

So you're fine with allowing murderers and rapists back out on the streets then? You said everything was negotiable.


So, if that is the case, then how do any of your beliefs hold any morality at all, if everything is subject to change, with no morality lines drawn?

NO LIMITATIONS, MEANS NO MORALITY.

 

What about someone who murdered someone who raped and killed his daughter? Should he get the same treatment as someone who killed an old lady in a robbery? It's still murder in both cases

 

We don't forgive one bank robber because another bank robber got away with it.

Each case is judged on its own merits.

Love the way the OP starts out with a staunch " no negotiating on the law" then crumples like a wet noodle when faced
with the crimes of Trump ... another utter bullcrap thread.

 

Should Clinton have been charged?

 

Yup.

She was just smarter about getting rid of the evidence than moron Trump.

 

umm, duh? lol. both are murderers. Just like democrats. They love murdering innocent babies.

 

She didn't really get rid of the evidence, at least not all of it.

She was just lucky that the FBI is as corrupt as she is, and was favorable to her.

Comey put Martha Stewart in prison for telling lies, but gave Hillary a pass for much worse violations of the law.

 

Doh!

 

Ivanka and others used personal email and the whatsup app, should we go after them too

the reality is, you can thank the republican Darrell Issa for allowing personal email use to this day

http://thedailybanter.com/2015/03/f...egulation-hillary-clinton-allegedly-violated/

1) Did Clinton break any laws by using a private email account, exclusively or otherwise?

No. And we’ve known about her private email for a couple of years now after it was originally reported by Gawker. So, old news. Also, guess which lawmaker made sure personal email usage was permitted in the amendments to the Federal Records Act last year? Rep. Darrell Issa (R-CA).


and not like she hid it, the domain of her email was @clintonemail.com

and it's no different from Trump using Trump Social, or Twitter

you would think Republicans would have made this illegal by now if they did not want it to happen?

the Bush whitehouse used AOL MAIL

 

i must be ignoring the distinguished gentleman to whom you are responding, in which case i certainly agree with you on all counts.

 

what crime do you think she committed, the Bush admin used AOL MAIL, the Trump admin also under personal email and the what's up app, even Trump's own daughter used personal email

 

and the 2nd amendment literally requires "regulation,"

 

It's ludicrous that so many have difficulty understanding the second amendment. At the time, a "militia" was a force formed by citizens to aid in defense or law enforcement. With the citizens armed, they would a source of a militia when needed, and in assisting the government or law, would be regulated in that service. Very much, the purpose of that statement is that the ability to call citizens to arms was considered critical to survival in crisis. Actually it still is; such as in Ukraine where armed citizens are now fighting alongside enlisted soldiers.

When the civil war started, the south had a much larger standing army than the union, and President Lincoln knew he must have more, fast- so he called for citizens to form a militia, with their own weapons, horses and supplies. In a few weeks, the union forces doubled in number as these volunteer groups came from all over the country. In effect, we are all "reserves" in the defense of the nation- militia.

 

posses were necessary to capture criminals and frontier settlements needed to gather together for self defense. modern gangs are no less dangerous than apaches or comanches and self defense, even mutual self defense is a valid motivation for a personal right to keep and bear arms.

however :
1. "selling guns to the indians" was never a constitutional right. it was a capital offense.
2. cowboys could open carry in the frontier town only if they could outdraw a known killer like wyatt earp.
3. no rational sheriff would take the town drunk or the village idiot or some greenhorn who did not know firearm safety rules on his posse.

in other words, a WELL REGULATED militia , being necessary etc. the founders certainly left this interpretation open , so, all this second amendment absolutism seems incompatible with the "free state" mentioned in the 2nd amendment.

are we still in the "no negotiation with lib'rals" thread?

 

It was never a "non negotiations with liberals" thing; but the idea that some things are just not negotiable at all.

When a militia was formed, as in the civil war- they did serve the military objectives. Per a supreme court definition-
'a body of citizens trained to military duty, who may be called out in certain cases, but may not be kept on service like standing armies, in times of peace'.
It's also related to the concept ov "Posse Comitatus" Meaning the sherrif of a county could call on citizens to help enforce county laws.

And... Wyatt Earp. prior to the OK Corral incident, had shot 197 criminals- only one of which died. The representation of his marksman ship and preference to wing rather than kill as portrayed in the TV series of his name- is true. Open carry was illegal in some towns at some times depending on local policy. Most of the "wild west" perceptions of gun violence are generated by movies. From a historical record of the city of Wichita KS (where Earp was marshal in the 1870's) the rate of murder at that time was actually less than the time the report was written, in the 1960's.

It's also true that the most dangerous situation regarding guns outside of criminal use is untrained, unfamiliar people handling them; you are right about that.
Anything that has the potential to cause immediate injury when not handled properly becomes dangerous through that kind of ignorance. Most gun owners recognize this and handle guns with a consistent and redundant pattern of caution. For example, if you want to look at a gun I have- before I hand it to you, I visually confirm that the gun is unloaded and the chamber empty. When I hand it to you- you visually confirm that the gun is unloaded and the chamber is empty. IF you fail to do that, I will immediately know you are not up to par on gun safety. There are many things like this which allow a trained person to quickly assess your skill levels and knowledge. Within the gun community, safety is a recognized must. it's the amateurs that create risk.

An alternative to the complex and somewhat in effective system of regulating gun sales we have today might be- that on your first purchase, you complete the thorough background check. You also must satisfactorily complete a firearms safety and training course. You get a card certifying each of these, and at that point are eligible to buy firearms. The background check could be time limited, say good for 5 years. Firearms you buy are recorded and remain trackable, but you don't complete the entire process every time you buy or trade a gun. I think that would greatly unload the federal system without losing effectiveness, and reduce misuse of firearms due to ignorance at the same time.