We The People Have Core Values

by **Trapper Gus** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 8:36

As if we needed a poll to tell us this news.

https://apnews.com/article/ap-poll-democracy-rights-freedoms-election-b1047da72551e13554a3959487e5181a

by TravelinMan Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 13:43

78% still support gun rights. God bless America.

by sεяεηιτλ Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 14:12

TravelinMan wrote:78% still support gun rights. God bless America.

I am one of those. But that doesn't mean unlimited.

Need to make it less easy to get guns, more expensive, add more red flags and require more training.

by TravelinMan Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 14:41

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:78% still support gun rights. God bless America.

I am one of those. But that doesn't mean unlimited.

Need to make it less easy to get guns, more expensive, add more red flags and require more training.

Making it more expensive and requiring expensive training unfairly affects the Poors. Poors deserve rights, too.

by AvgMSUJoe Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 15:10

sεяεηιτλ wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:78% still support gun rights. God bless America.

I am one of those. But that doesn't mean unlimited.

Need to make it less easy to get guns, more expensive, add more red flags and require more training.

Agree & "guns" don't mean military style weapons. Those are for the military.

License, insure and regulate (red flag, crazy fucks, etc.) every gun sale.

I wouldn't be opposed to taxing the sales to cover making sure the crazy fucks don't get the guns.

The poors can't afford airplanes or beach front estates either.

by **Cameron** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 15:24

I have mixed feelings about the 2nd amendment in general, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where only the wealthy have access to firearms. Though I can see why the wealthy might desire that...

by msugolfguy Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 15:27

Cameron wrote:I have mixed feelings about the 2nd amendment in general, but I certainly don't want to live in a world where only the wealthy have access to firearms. Though I can see why the wealthy might desire that...

In general most of your "rights" should be accessible. That's why they are rights. Entry level barriers in general aren't a good thing, especially to rights.

That being said other countries have figured it out. The Swiss being a decent example.

by **Motown Spartan** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 15:32

TravelinMan wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I am one of those. But that doesn't mean unlimited.

Need to make it less easy to get guns, more expensive, add more red flags and require more training.

Making it more expensive and requiring expensive training unfairly affects the Poors. Poors deserve rights, too.

Like you give a shit about poor people.

by TravelinMan Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 16:23

AvgMSUJoe wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I am one of those. But that doesn't mean unlimited.

Need to make it less easy to get guns, more expensive, add more red flags and require more training.

Agree & "guns" don't mean military style weapons. Those are for the military.

License, insure and regulate (red flag, crazy fucks, etc.) every gun sale.

I wouldn't be opposed to taxing the sales to cover making sure the crazy fucks don't get the guns.

The poors can't afford airplanes or beach front estates either.

I’m sure the founding fathers lament not including rights for owning airplanes.

by Pervis Muldoon Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 17:39

TravelinMan wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I am one of those. But that doesn't mean unlimited.

Need to make it less easy to get guns, more expensive, add more red flags and require more training.

Making it more expensive and requiring expensive training unfairly affects the Poors. Poors deserve rights, too.

I hadn't seen a post from you recently. Looks like you're still trying to make sure people think you're not poor.

by sεяεηιτλ Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 18:19

TravelinMan wrote:
sεяεηιτλ wrote:

I am one of those. But that doesn't mean unlimited.

Need to make it less easy to get guns, more expensive, add more red flags and require more training.

Making it more expensive and requiring expensive training unfairly affects the Poors. Poors deserve rights, too.

unsurprisingly, the poors are where most of the gun crime is.

Besides, we can just create government support programs (subsidies) for poor people that wish to own firearms. Bonus moneys to actual hunting equipment.

You do not have the right to cheap guns. Besides, i'm not talking about making them unobtainable via $$$, just make them a bigger pain in the ass to acquire and you'll cut down on the impulse buys from people in bad states of minds at the moment.

Every gun should take at least 6 months to obtain too.

by **Trapper Gus** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 20:58

Why is anyone responding to TM bat **** crazy take on what the 2nd, which was meant to authorize organized "slave patrols" of groups of white racists in the southern states, as though it means something else?

by **DWags** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 21:10

Trapper Gus wrote:Why is anyone responding to TM bat **** crazy take on what the 2nd, which was meant to authorize organized "slave patrols" of groups of white racists in the southern states, as though it means something else?

Second amendment people have the brain worms too. You can’t reason with them. It would take a family member getting killed in front of them, and that might not do it.

by **Trapper Gus** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 21:19

DWags wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:Why is anyone responding to TM bat **** crazy take on what the 2nd, which was meant to authorize organized "slave patrols" of groups of white racists in the southern states, as though it means something else?

Second amendment people have the brain worms too. You can’t reason with them. It would take a family member getting killed in front of them, and that might not do it.

Fair enough, I guess.

Of course I like to think my brain worms make some sense for our country.

by TravelinMan Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 21:26

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Making it more expensive and requiring expensive training unfairly affects the Poors. Poors deserve rights, too.

I hadn't seen a post from you recently. Looks like you're still trying to make sure people think you're not poor.

And I was told we didn’t do Wells Hall bullshit here. We The People Have Core Values 502811600

by **DWags** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 21:31

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Making it more expensive and requiring expensive training unfairly affects the Poors. Poors deserve rights, too.

I hadn't seen a post from you recently. Looks like you're still trying to make sure people think you're not poor.

by TravelinMan Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 21:35

Trapper Gus wrote:Why is anyone responding to TM bat **** crazy take on what the 2nd, which was meant to authorize organized "slave patrols" of groups of white racists in the southern states, as though it means something else?

It was your post. (Thanks for the link, BTW) What was I supposed to take from it?

by **Trapper Gus** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 21:57

TravelinMan wrote:
Pervis Muldoon wrote:

I hadn't seen a post from you recently. Looks like you're still trying to make sure people think you're not poor.

And I was told we didn’t do Wells Hall bullshit here.

A relentless attack on this board by some people will bring out the worst in others, just like it did on Wells.

Stop posting like you did on Wells and it will not happen.

by **Trapper Gus** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 22:00

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:Why is anyone responding to TM bat **** crazy take on what the 2nd, which was meant to authorize organized "slave patrols" of groups of white racists in the southern states, as though it means something else?

It was your post. (Thanks for the link, BTW) What was I supposed to take from it?

You took the hot button issue with the least agreement instead of the issues with more agreement.

The 2nd is problematic, and as a general statement has too many meanings at cross purposes.

Let's talk about Freedom of Religion instead.

by TravelinMan Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 22:56

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

It was your post. (Thanks for the link, BTW) What was I supposed to take from it?

You took the hot button issue with the least agreement instead of the issues with more agreement.

The 2nd is problematic, and as a general statement has too many meanings at cross purposes.

Let's talk about Freedom of Religion instead.

78% is still a larger percentage than I would have guessed given the sentiments expressed online by people like yourself.

I hate to keep telling you how to post references, but if there's topics you don't want discussed in links you provide, maybe say that upfront so we know not to upset you?

Religion at 95%. Seems pretty universally beloved. What's so discussion worthy about that?

by **Trapper Gus** Wed 3 Apr 2024 - 23:35

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

You took the hot button issue with the least agreement instead of the issues with more agreement.

The 2nd is problematic, and as a general statement has too many meanings at cross purposes.

Let's talk about Freedom of Religion instead.

78% is still a larger percentage than I would have guessed given the sentiments expressed online by people like yourself.

I hate to keep telling you how to post references, but if there's topics you don't want discussed in links you provide, maybe say that upfront so we know not to upset you?

Religion at 95%. Seems pretty universally beloved. What's so discussion worthy about that?

The question of what each means is significant.

The 2nd does not mean that anyone can own whatever they want. It means the States can have a National Guard.

Freedom of religion means that Muslims & Christian beliefs are equal before the law.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 6:21

love me a good mainstream media poll.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 6:23

Pervis Muldoon wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Making it more expensive and requiring expensive training unfairly affects the Poors. Poors deserve rights, too.

I hadn't seen a post from you recently. Looks like you're still trying to make sure people think you're not poor.

hey now.. he worked hard to get to where he is.

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 8:37

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

78% is still a larger percentage than I would have guessed given the sentiments expressed online by people like yourself.

I hate to keep telling you how to post references, but if there's topics you don't want discussed in links you provide, maybe say that upfront so we know not to upset you?

Religion at 95%. Seems pretty universally beloved. What's so discussion worthy about that?

The question of what each means is significant.

The 2nd does not mean that anyone can own whatever they want. It means the States can have a National Guard.

Freedom of religion means that Muslims & Christian beliefs are equal before the law.

Well Heller disagrees with you, but yes, all religions should be treated the same under the law. Now where it gets squirrley is the definition of what a religion is. Have fun with that one.

by **Trapper Gus** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 8:54

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

The question of what each means is significant.

The 2nd does not mean that anyone can own whatever they want. It means the States can have a National Guard.

Freedom of religion means that Muslims & Christian beliefs are equal before the law.

Well Heller disagrees with you, but yes, all religions should be treated the same under the law. Now where it gets squirrley is the definition of what a religion is. Have fun with that one.

If you haven't caught onto the reality that tSCOTUS is more political than an umpire of the law, it isn't likely you ever will.

(And anyone who believes the Conservative Justices rhetorical fig leaf regarding "Originalism" is an idiot)

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:07

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Well Heller disagrees with you, but yes, all religions should be treated the same under the law. Now where it gets squirrley is the definition of what a religion is. Have fun with that one.

If you haven't caught onto the reality that tSCOTUS is more political than an umpire of the law, it isn't likely you ever will.

(And anyone who believes the Conservative Justices rhetorical fig leaf regarding "Originalism" is an idiot)

So moving on…

How do you want to define religion?

by **Trapper Gus** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:21

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

If you haven't caught onto the reality that tSCOTUS is more political than an umpire of the law, it isn't likely you ever will.

(And anyone who believes the Conservative Justices rhetorical fig leaf regarding "Originalism" is an idiot)

So moving on…

How do you want to define religion?

It isn't what "Religion" is that is important. What is important is that "The People" are free to practice whatever it is without government interference, with the obvious exceptions of violations of "The People's" individual rights.

Thus, for the Jewish Religion, abortions are allowed, for instance, as that is part of its belief system, while for Catholics abortions are not allowed, since that is part of their belief system. In neither case does the government have the ability to get in the middle of that conversation and force one set of beliefs on part of the population.

It might be supposed that a religion which practices human sacrifice, not that there is one, but hypothetically, would be allowed, however, at worst that would depend on the willingness of the person being sacrificed and the other argument is there are common beliefs of "The People" as a whole regarding individual rights which might put this beyond the pale.

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:36

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

So moving on…

How do you want to define religion?

It isn't what "Religion" is that is important. What is important is that "The People" are free to practice whatever it is without government interference, with the obvious exceptions of violations of "The People's" individual rights.

Thus, for the Jewish Religion, abortions are allowed, for instance, as that is part of its belief system, while for Catholics abortions are not allowed, since that is part of their belief system. In neither case does the government have the ability to get in the middle of that conversation and force one set of beliefs on part of the population.

It might be supposed that a religion which practices human sacrifice, not that there is one, but hypothetically, would be allowed, however, at worst that would depend on the willingness of the person being sacrificed and the other argument is there are common beliefs of "The People" as a whole regarding individual rights which might put this beyond the pale.

You appear to be loosely defining a religion as a set of common beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong - that's just me reading between the lines here). But, to your specific example, I can assure you that not all Catholics are pro-life, and not all Jews are pro-choice. There is little to no homogeneous belief system within modern day religions.

What qualifies as a religion, and the definition explicit or implied thereof, is important to the discussion. Is Scientology a religion? Is Rastafarianism a religion? Is MAGA a religion?

by **Floyd Robertson** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:41

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

It isn't what "Religion" is that is important. What is important is that "The People" are free to practice whatever it is without government interference, with the obvious exceptions of violations of "The People's" individual rights.

Thus, for the Jewish Religion, abortions are allowed, for instance, as that is part of its belief system, while for Catholics abortions are not allowed, since that is part of their belief system. In neither case does the government have the ability to get in the middle of that conversation and force one set of beliefs on part of the population.

It might be supposed that a religion which practices human sacrifice, not that there is one, but hypothetically, would be allowed, however, at worst that would depend on the willingness of the person being sacrificed and the other argument is there are common beliefs of "The People" as a whole regarding individual rights which might put this beyond the pale.

You appear to be loosely defining a religion as a set of common beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong - that's just me reading between the lines here). But, to your specific example, I can assure you that not all Catholics are pro-life, and not all Jews are pro-choice. There is little to no homogeneous belief system within modern day religions.

What qualifies as a religion, and the definition explicit or implied thereof, is important to the discussion. Is Scientology a religion? Is Rastafarianism a religion? Is MAGA a religion?

Yeah, it's not as simple as Trapper's "practice whatever it is". There has to be a practical definition because there are tax implications (which there shouldn't be). There has to be an idol/God, which scarily, means Trumpism is a (fruitcake) religion.

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:51

Floyd Robertson wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

You appear to be loosely defining a religion as a set of common beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong - that's just me reading between the lines here). But, to your specific example, I can assure you that not all Catholics are pro-life, and not all Jews are pro-choice. There is little to no homogeneous belief system within modern day religions.

What qualifies as a religion, and the definition explicit or implied thereof, is important to the discussion. Is Scientology a religion? Is Rastafarianism a religion? Is MAGA a religion?

Yeah, it's not as simple as Trapper's "practice whatever it is". There has to be a practical definition because there are tax implications (which there shouldn't be). There has to be an idol/God, which scarily, means Trumpism is a (fruitcake) religion.

Exactly. Otherwise we get people creating religions willy nilly to promote personal belief systems. And no one wants the Almighty but Benevolent St. TravelinMan to form the Church of Hard Work. Although cats as sacred animals, the sacrament of beer, and Plan B in every candy dish in America would be a most holy sight. Amen.

by **Trapper Gus** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:52

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

It isn't what "Religion" is that is important. What is important is that "The People" are free to practice whatever it is without government interference, with the obvious exceptions of violations of "The People's" individual rights.

Thus, for the Jewish Religion, abortions are allowed, for instance, as that is part of its belief system, while for Catholics abortions are not allowed, since that is part of their belief system. In neither case does the government have the ability to get in the middle of that conversation and force one set of beliefs on part of the population.

It might be supposed that a religion which practices human sacrifice, not that there is one, but hypothetically, would be allowed, however, at worst that would depend on the willingness of the person being sacrificed and the other argument is there are common beliefs of "The People" as a whole regarding individual rights which might put this beyond the pale.

You appear to be loosely defining a religion as a set of common beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong - that's just me reading between the lines here). But, to your specific example, I can assure you that not all Catholics are pro-life, and not all Jews are pro-choice. There is little to no homogeneous belief system within modern day religions.

What qualifies as a religion, and the definition explicit or implied thereof, is important to the discussion. Is Scientology a religion? Is Rastafarianism a religion? Is MAGA a religion?

The freedom to believe what you believe and to practice these beliefs with others without government interference is what I am describing.

Abortion it is a "hot button" issue which different religions can be pointed at as formally believing different things. The Jewish religion puts the safety on the living women as paramount, the Catholic religion does not. What some people in each religion believe isn't material to the discussion, only the formal beliefs.

To Floyd's point, tax exemptions are getting into an area as granting them at all is problematic, however, the IRS and other taxing authorities have set the rules up, and if the rules are met then tax exemptions are granted. Is this government interference?

by **Trapper Gus** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:55

TravelinMan wrote:
Floyd Robertson wrote:

Yeah, it's not as simple as Trapper's "practice whatever it is". There has to be a practical definition because there are tax implications (which there shouldn't be). There has to be an idol/God, which scarily, means Trumpism is a (fruitcake) religion.

Exactly. Otherwise we get people creating religions willy nilly to promote personal belief systems. And no one wants the Almighty but Benevolent St. TravelinMan to form the Church of Hard Work. Although cats as sacred animals, the sacrament of beer, and Plan B in every candy dish in America would be a most holy sight. Amen.

Funny but I will defend your right to form the "Church of Hard Work"

The government, however, has set up the rules by which your "Church of Hard Work" becomes a tax-exempt organization. If your church meets them then you are.

What the Religion clause meant, originally, however, is that the federal government could not favor one Religion over another, and then after the 14th Amendment, that also applied to the States.

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 9:56

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

You appear to be loosely defining a religion as a set of common beliefs (correct me if I'm wrong - that's just me reading between the lines here). But, to your specific example, I can assure you that not all Catholics are pro-life, and not all Jews are pro-choice. There is little to no homogeneous belief system within modern day religions.

What qualifies as a religion, and the definition explicit or implied thereof, is important to the discussion. Is Scientology a religion? Is Rastafarianism a religion? Is MAGA a religion?

The freedom to believe what you believe and to practice these beliefs with others without government interference is what I am describing.

Abortion it is a "hot button" issue which different religions can be pointed at as formally believing different things. The Jewish religion puts the safety on the living women as paramount, the Catholic religion does not. What some people in each religion believe isn't material to the discussion, only the formal beliefs.

To Floyd's point, tax exemptions are getting into an area as granting them at all is problematic, however, the IRS and other taxing authorities have set the rules up, and if the rules are met then tax exemptions are granted. Is this government interference?

The freedom to "believe what you believe," in some respects, isn't much different that the right to free speech. Yes, you have rights, up to a point. No one has ultimate freedom on either front.

by **Trapper Gus** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 10:02

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

The freedom to believe what you believe and to practice these beliefs with others without government interference is what I am describing.

Abortion it is a "hot button" issue which different religions can be pointed at as formally believing different things. The Jewish religion puts the safety on the living women as paramount, the Catholic religion does not. What some people in each religion believe isn't material to the discussion, only the formal beliefs.

To Floyd's point, tax exemptions are getting into an area as granting them at all is problematic, however, the IRS and other taxing authorities have set the rules up, and if the rules are met then tax exemptions are granted. Is this government interference?

The freedom to "believe what you believe," in some respects, isn't much different that the right to free speech. Yes, you have rights, up to a point. No one has ultimate freedom on either front.

Which opens up what tSCOTUS and lower courts should be doing, which is adjudicating the conflicts between the various "rights" that people have in order to provide the greatest rights for the greatest number. On the 2nd they have lost their way, as the Right to Live, as the Right not to be randomly shot by some crazy with a gun, should override the right of the crazy to have the gun.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 10:03

my core values are to stay away from the two things that cause the most heartache in our country: religion and guns.

probably a good thing the mainstream media didn't ask me.. We The People Have Core Values 502811600

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 10:04

Trapper Gus wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

The freedom to "believe what you believe," in some respects, isn't much different that the right to free speech. Yes, you have rights, up to a point. No one has ultimate freedom on either front.

Which opens up what tSCOTUS and lower courts should be doing, which is adjudicating the conflicts between the various "rights" that people have in order to provide the greatest rights for the greatest number. On the 2nd they have lost their way, as the Right to Live, as the Right not to be randomly shot by some crazy with a gun, should override the right of the crazy to have the gun.

Ya'll get mad when I bring up guns, I agree to drop the discussion of guns, and then you bring up guns again. Sheesh.

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 10:04

Robert J Sakimano wrote:my core values are to stay away from the two things that cause the most heartache in our country: religion and guns.

probably a good thing the mainstream media didn't ask me..

That's cool. And I 100% support your right not to work hard, too.

by **Trapper Gus** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 10:14

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Which opens up what tSCOTUS and lower courts should be doing, which is adjudicating the conflicts between the various "rights" that people have in order to provide the greatest rights for the greatest number. On the 2nd they have lost their way, as the Right to Live, as the Right not to be randomly shot by some crazy with a gun, should override the right of the crazy to have the gun.

Ya'll get mad when I bring up guns, I agree to drop the discussion of guns, and then you bring up guns again. Sheesh.

I expressed the "original meaning" of the 2nd, more to point out how crazy tSCOTUS decisions since the 1970's have been. Since you are crazy about this too, I mentioned your name. You seem to think I am angry at you, while I am angry at the activist Republican Court and their highly political rulings on the 2nd, which you are defending.

by **Robert J Sakimano** Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 10:17

TravelinMan wrote:
Trapper Gus wrote:

Which opens up what tSCOTUS and lower courts should be doing, which is adjudicating the conflicts between the various "rights" that people have in order to provide the greatest rights for the greatest number. On the 2nd they have lost their way, as the Right to Live, as the Right not to be randomly shot by some crazy with a gun, should override the right of the crazy to have the gun.

Ya'll get mad when I bring up guns, I agree to drop the discussion of guns, and then you bring up guns again. Sheesh.

dude, you can talk about anything you want.

and we reserve the right to be judgemental as hell. We The People Have Core Values 969504605

by TravelinMan Thu 4 Apr 2024 - 10:20

Robert J Sakimano wrote:
TravelinMan wrote:

Ya'll get mad when I bring up guns, I agree to drop the discussion of guns, and then you bring up guns again. Sheesh.
dude, you can talk about anything you want.

and we reserve the right to be judgemental as hell.

Bless you, brother Bob.

by Sponsored content