WalkingWolf
Regular Member
I'm glad to see my phraseology had the desired effect.
What affect? Weakening your own heart, and jeopardizing your own health because of stress from a internet forum? JMHO but you are wound to tight.
I'm glad to see my phraseology had the desired effect.
What affect? Weakening your own heart, and jeopardizing your own health because of stress from a internet forum? JMHO but you are wound to tight.
No the empire has not.
One would need step back from material concerns and see that the empire is not restricting your liberty....too much. I am in complete agreement regarding the burden the government places on us today to exercise our liberties to the maximum extent possible under the law. But I do not concede the point that we as citizens have no choice what so ever in this matter, or that events have given us no other options.
I have no restrictions place upon me regarding the movement of my property, such as firearms.
If you do not speed then a speed trap will not affect you. or learn where speed traps are typically set and avoid them.
I do not use fly.
I make do as best I can given this economy, and I vote. I work to inform my neighbors regarding the economy. Once they are informed they typically reject Big Government and they too will vote.
Zoning regulations are of little concern to me at this time. In the future, who knows.
I tend to focus my energies on concerns that are closer to home.
To each their own.
I don't give a whit what's "of concern" to you. All of the things I mentioned provide real impediments to people wishing to move.
Basically, the position you're in is, "if you don't like it, you should move."
So I say (hypothetically), "no, I can't move, there are too many impediments to moving."
And you respond, "well, none of those things are of concern to me."
But then, you're not moving, are you? So why should they be of concern?
I also find it amusing that, in discounting all my concerns, you left the potential mover with no option but to walk.
In case you haven't figured it out, people don't walk. Even back at the time of the founding, people would have moved furniture and goods via wagon or ship, and needed no special dispensation to do so. Now, the public thoroughfares have been co-opted for exclusive use by motor vehicles (and bicycles in some places), which, thanks to our benevolent SCOTUS, we have no right to drive, as they have decided that the freedom to walk is plenty freedom enough – anything more and you'd better ask permission, boy. Which leaves us in a state of considerably less freedom than at the time of the founding (even as our SCOTUS tries to convince us that nobody ever traveled anywhere but by foot).
There is no way that you can reasonably argue that the right to move remains intact. At every turn, in every possible way that end might be pursued, one must seek privilege. Unless, that is, you're willing to accept that your right to self-defense entails nothing more than the ability to use your own two hands – no weapons allowed.
We are all free to leave if we so desire.
Why should we be the one's to leave? The government doesn't own this land; the people do.
Or is every property owner in the US just a renter to Washington, DC?
Sorry, I hear this line over and over, and it drives me nuts. :banghead:
What gives you the right to own any land?
What gives the government the right to own any land?
don't hi-jack my question, what gives YOU the right to own land?
What gives you the right to own any land?
This thread is being hi-jacked by off topic discussion.
Are we done with the "Chris Kyle Murdered" subject?