Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[xtry51]

It amazes me how people can make such illogical deductions as you do. But, the more time spent here, the less amazing it becomes. So let's see if we can't make a logical deduction from the facts we know. I do CC. You may reasonably deduce that I CC because I believe that I have a right of self-defense under applicable law in MA. If I believe that I have that right, it would be illogical for you do deduce that I would argue that others do not have that right.

As to where rights come from, that depends on your view of the law. I tend to think Kelsen had it right except that man is not the measure of all things in view of Godel's Theorem. So now you know my basic position on where rights come from.

That's a lot of words for saying nothing at all.

You CC, but you stated earlier certain people of certain mental mindsets (whether ill will, genetic defects, etc) should not be allowed to have firearms. Last I checked that's called deciding who is and who isn't allowed to CC. So you still haven't clarified that point, or told us in your own words what a right is. Instead you hide behind others opinions and claim them as your own, which is fairly disingenuous.

 

[namedpipes]

. . . So let's see if we can't make a logical deduction from the facts we know. I do CC. You may reasonably deduce that I CC because I believe that I have a right of self-defense under applicable law in MA. If I believe that I have that right, it would be illogical for you do deduce that I would argue that others do not have that right. . . .

Fail.

1. WE do not KNOW that you CC. YOU have stated that.
2. The next sentence parses two ways, which invalidates everything anyway, but let's make believe it made sense. Your belief that you have a right to self defense does NOT mean that is the reason you CC. AGAIN you miss a step in the chain of logic.
3. While your belief that YOU have such a right at best *suggests* you believe others have such a right it is not a proof. Rumor has it that John Rosenthal and Mayor Bloomberg have CC permits, neither of whom would allow us to have them, if they would have their way.

Exactly where were you a lawyer/judge? Cuz IMO you suck at arguing.

Oh yeah. You don't care

 

[calsdad]

I don't understand why this so hard to understand?

2A was intended to protect the right of the people to do as they had just done to form this nation. Rise up against tyranny with an armed and effective civilian militia with all the tools and wherewithal they would face from that same government.

It was hoped that this standing threat to the government would both be sufficient to keep them in line most of the time and when not, leave enough arms in the hands of the people to fix it.

Scalia is FOS and as others have said, this is not a surprise given the vile nonsense he spewed in heller.

I would say the "right" goes back even further than that.

Somewhere along the line - humans forgot that they were not always held in chains under some monarch, or king, or dictator - or president.

Those who pretend to rule us throw out all sorts of BS to justify their rule. Then - as people will do - after enough time has passed - they tend to believe their own BS - and get pissed off when somebody challenges them on it.

Absent ANY form of government whatsoever - man would exist in the wild - and if you believe in evolution - at some point he did.

Do we say that a tiger has no "right" to his claws? A bird has no "right" to his talons? A aboriginal tribesman has no "right" to his spear?

Where's the difference in all of that vs. saying that a human living in a "modern" society has no "right" to own a firearm to defend himself? As human society grows and becomes more complex - people have to live by different "rules" than they would if they lived in the wild - I can see that.

But giving up the "right" to defend oneself is something that ONLY comes out of the mouths of people who are actually IN THE GOVERNMENT - or people who have somehow forgotten their humanity - and have become apologists FOR BIG GOVERNMENT.

Take away that facade - and put people back to living in more primitive conditions (in other words take away the unicorn and the idea that there exists an omnipotent govt. to protect you) - and people go right back to the idea that they need to defend themselves - and they will QUICKLY acquire firearms to do so.

The history of the last 100 years shows this very clearly. Over and over and over again in multiple countries and societies.

I see this as an experiment that has been run over and over and over again - like the chimpanzee in the plastic box who presses the button to get a treat. We have been trained - or they want to train us - to be content in the plastic box pressing the button. Once the lab burns down - the chimpanzees escape to the wild and go right back to living like chimpanzees were meant to live.

Anybody who has seen the difference between house cats and feral cats can see the same thing in effect.

 

[cekim]

You may reasonably deduce that I CC because I believe that I have a right of self-defense under applicable law in MA. If I believe that I have that right, it would be illogical for you do deduce that I would argue that others do not have that right.

Actually no, there are many people who own and carry and also espouse elitist nonsense about how we need reasonable restrictions.

Some of the leading proponents of gun control have been caught with CCW permits, or even carrying illegally when they are not using armed body guards.

The frequency of hypocrisy on this issue makes your assertion invalid. One can draw no conclusions about one's beliefs based on what they do. This sort of thing is not limited to 2A either - there is a lot of "do as I say, not as I do" in politics.

 

[Baikal49]

Actually no, there are many people who own and carry and also espouse elitist nonsense about how we need reasonable restrictions.

Some of the leading proponents of gun control have been caught with CCW permits, or even carrying illegally when they are not using armed body guards.

The frequency of hypocrisy on this issue makes your assertion invalid. One can draw no conclusions about one's beliefs based on what they do. This sort of thing is not limited to 2A either - there is a lot of "do as I say, not as I do" in politics.

I don't doubt that there are hypocrites around. It's part of life. Look at Ayn Rands taking Social Security. I do my best to be consistent, and regarding self-defense and CC, I am fully consistent. BTW, the frequency of hypocritical behavior in others does not make my assertion in any way invalid, certainly not on it's face. .

 

[Admin]

Look at Ayn Rands taking Social Security.

I think SS is a complete scam, however why would I be a hypocrite for wanting to get back a portion of the hundreds of thousands of dollars the .gov stole from me and my employer?

 

[OlSparky11B]

A bit off topic, but I must say I found the link at Baikal49's signature friggin' hilarious. Did you know that R. Lee Ermey is guilty of "Political Violence"? The internet has really bred a comedic corp of beta-males espousing their beliefs that would normally be sad if it weren't so damned funny.

Bravo! I hope to see a representative of that website confronting the Gunny at the next NRA convention.

 

[calsdad]

If we're getting to the point in the conversation where someone is arguing children should be able to concealed carry, this conversation has jumped the shark.

Let's start by discussing things like repealing assault weapons bans and magazine capacity restrictions before we get to a argument 98% of the population feels has zero credibility.

And BTW, 13 years old is not old enough to have a child. Last I checked, the means to get there was called "statutory rape".

List of youngest birth mothers:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_youngest_birth_mothers

Human males are fertile at around 12-13 years of age.

The "proper" age to have a child is largely a societal thing - which should be obvious because in our lifetimes it has constantly been pushed later and later.

How old was John Paul Jones when he took command of a ship? 15?

How long do "children" have to be kept on a parent's health care plan now (if they don't have their own)? Isn't it in the mid 20's??

Calvin Graham served in WW2 - when he TWELVE YEARS OLD.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Calvin_Graham

I didn't take his argument to mean concealed carry - I took it to mean defend oneself with a firearm. I don't see where defending oneself against an aggressor should have an age limit.

 

[PWM]

It's not a simple question particularly when you consider the impact of Goedel's Theorem in relation to law and absolutes with the theorem being a mathematical proof that no formal system can encompass all truths.

That doesn't relate to law.... throwing a penalty flag here..

 

[Baikal49]

Fail.

1. WE do not KNOW that you CC. YOU have stated that.


You don't know and I don't care what you believe or not. It has absolutely no impact on me whatsoever.

2. The next sentence parses two ways, which invalidates everything anyway, but let's make believe it made sense. Your belief that you have a right to self defense does NOT mean that is the reason you CC. AGAIN you miss a step in the chain of logic.

MY belief that I have a right of self-defense has in fact led me to obtain an unrestricted LTC A and CC.It is the reason that I CC. I do not CC just for the fun of it. In fact, I have during the past 5 years been involved in Federal civil litigation in CA and TX that led to a Secret Service investigation of our adversaries and the indictment and conviction of one person thus far. That has resulted in death threats against me and others involved in the case. That's another reason I CC.

3. While your belief that YOU have such a right at best *suggests* you believe others have such a right it is not a proof. Rumor has it that John Rosenthal and Mayor Bloomberg have CC permits, neither of whom would allow us to have them, if they would have their way.

You can believe or not believe anything you like. It is of absolutely no consequence to me. Rosenthal and Bloomberg are not at issue or relevant to what we are discussing.

Exactly where were you a lawyer/judge? Cuz IMO you suck at arguing.

Oh yeah. You don't care

I've already stated in this forum the particulars of that. And you're right, I don't care. You have a great day.

 

[Baikal49]

That doesn't relate to law.... throwing a penalty flag here..

Kelsen and Goedel don't relate to law? What planet are you from?

 

[Baikal49]

I think SS is a complete scam, however why would I be a hypocrite for wanting to get back a portion of the hundreds of thousands of dollars the .gov stole from me and my employer?

Reread Rand and get back to us if you fail to understand why she was a hypocrite.

 

[PWM]

Kelsen and Goedel don't relate to law? What planet are you from?

Godel's theory of incompleteness, as I understand it applies to mathematical truth. How does that relate here... I'm a bit confused about the use case (Really, I'm not busting your balls.. I'm intrigued if in fact you have a valid use as it applies).

 

[n1zfg]

There is no law limiting when and where my children may walk around. My ability to punish them as a parent does not stem from law or the state. I do not derive the rights of how I raise my children from government. Grounding or punishing my children has no force of law, which is what we're discussing here. Nothing stops my children from running away if they want to. And if they ever do I'll do what my Mom did with me, I'll pack them a lunch, wish them luck and tell them they're welcome back home anytime.

Moving on your children argument has nothing to do with the formation of governments or natural rights.

I'm not talking about a law limiting when/where your children may walk around, I'm talking about you having the power to do that. I'm talking about them being in your custody. They are your wards. Whether or not you choose to exercise all the powers that come with the job is not the sidetrack I'm trying to drive home here. I'm just saying that by the existence of your rights as a parent over the child in your custody, where that child goes is at your discretion. Even when I was in high school when I was 17, I still had to get permission slips signed by my parents for field trips. In other words, my parent's discretion regarding my whereabouts didn't end until I turned 18. Until that time I was not free. And I don't think the laws regarding this have changed in the quarter century since.

And back to my original statement: All free persons should be able to carry. And if certain individuals are too immature, dumb, crazy, or evil to carry, then they should be in the custody of some responsible party, and otherwise not free.

 

[cekim]

Kelsen and Goedel don't relate to law? What planet are you from?

Ahh, 1930's German legal science... What is not to love.

Having lived all my life it with a family of lawyers, I can tell you that law has an overinflated sense of is own importance. It's logic, while often rigorous, is equally often flawed in its base assumptions. The same can be seen in progressive politics. It is often the case that they use logic from some point forward to their conclusion, but ignore profound and obvious structural failures in their base assumptions.

They treat their logic as science, but it is religion because of the articles of faith at the root.

I appreciate the attempt it makes to be "just" by applying the same logic until it is overwhelmed and forced to change, but unfortunately legal "science" and "justice" may overlap, they are far from the same thing and many lawyers and legislators miss this.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

It's not a simple question particularly when you consider the impact of Goedel's Theorem in relation to law and absolutes with the theorem being a mathematical proof that no formal system can encompass all truths.

Are you a believer in Natural Law or are you a Kelsenist? That would probably be a good place to begin a discussion.

I do not weigh my rights based on numbers, political polls, current beliefs and mathematical theories. Either you have inalienable rights or not: What side of the fence are you on?

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.

Since you cannot answer, you are simply a progressive and are therefore unable to state that people have rights handed down by THEIR CREATOR and therefore are unalienable. Have a nice time in Antarctica: I hear the the ozone hole affords you a nice tan...

 

[Baikal49]

I do not weigh my rights based on numbers, political polls, current beliefs and mathematical theories. Either you have inalienable rights or not: What side of the fence are you on?



Since you cannot answer, you are simply a progressive and are therefore unable to state that people have rights handed down by THEIR CREATOR and therefore are unalienable. Have a nice time in Antarctica: I hear the the ozone hole affords you a nice tan...

Since you can not make logical sense what you write is nonsensical. Enjoy your day.

 

[drgrant]

Serious question:

I don't believe that people should have the right to buy a 50 megaton ICBM for their backyard silo. Does that make me an anti? I do believe that people should be able to walk into Guns R Us and buy a fully auto MAC 10 if they want, but I start drawing the line somewhere between Stingers and VX gas rockets. Seriously, am I an "anti" because of this belief?

Follow up:

Is preventing anyone from buying a suitcase nuke a " reasonable restriction" on the second ammendment? For the record I don't think government should be trusted with these weapons either.

I think nukes are a terrible example as a hypothetical because someone capable of building one (and crazy enough to build/own one) is really not gonna care about a felony conviction if they got caught.

Rather, what you should be asking is something like "Should people be allowed to own fragmentation grenades?" After all, the unit cost is low enough that a human being could probably afford a few of them, among other things. They are also a weapon suited for individual warfare, which is what some would argue the scope of the 2nd really covers. Stuff you can carry as a person.

-Mike

 

[Baikal49]

Ahh, German legal science... What is not to love.

Having lived all my life it with a family of lawyers, I can tell you that law has an overinflated sense of is own importance. It's logic, while often rigorous, is equally often flawed in its base assumptions. The same can be seen in progressive politics. It is often the case that they use logic from some point forward to their conclusion, but ignore profound and obvious structural failures in their base assumptions.

They treat their logic as science, but it is religion because of the articles of faith at the root.

I appreciate the attempt it makes to be "just" by applying the same logic until it is overwhelmed and forced to change, but unfortunately legal "science" and "justice" may overlap, they are far from the same thing and many lawyers and legislators miss this.

If you want to discuss the specifics of how Kelsen and Goedel might impact constitutional rights, please start and I'll join you in the discussion.

 

[cekim]

If you want to discuss the specifics of how Kelsen and Goedel might impact constitutional rights, please start and I'll join you in the discussion.

I don't and the first issue is with your statement: "constitutional rights"

They are "constitutional protections" of rights that exist regardless of the constitution. So, the majority if what Kelsen has to say is mental masturbation to re-state what should be obvious or justify what is not the case.

 

[Baikal49]

Godel's theory of incompleteness, as I understand it applies to mathematical truth. How does that relate here... I'm a bit confused about the use case (Really, I'm not busting your balls.. I'm intrigued if in fact you have a valid use as it applies).

Goedel's mathematical proof posited that no formal system can contain all truths. The issue often debated is what constitutes a formal system outside of pure mathematics that may be impacted by the incompleteness theory. In Kelsen's view, everything that the Nazis did during their years in power was legally proper; the laws were passed in accordance with the procedural requirements of the time. When the Nuremberg war crime trials took place, the appeal was to violations of universal human principles of justice that were effectively based on Natural Law. That was ridiculed by Kelsen as an unprovable legal basis because the existence of God, from whom Natural Law derives, can not be proven.

What Goedel's theorem does is, in Kelsen's own terms, not appealing to natural law, is it raises the possibility that a truth existed outside the Nazi legal system that could totally negate the laws the Nazis implemented. The difficulty with Goedel's theorem is that it can not tell us what those truths outside the system are. It only gives us the ability to deny the claim that what the law is is what it is and no more. It cuts into any literalist interpretation of any law be it from a dictatorship like that of Nazi Germany or someone arguing for a static, literalist view of the rights found in our BoR.

There are implications for other formal systems such as are found in religion. Even language is a formal system that may be impacted. Hope this very basic explanation helps.

 

[OlSparky11B]

Food for thought: If a rational argument for restrictions on firearms is that our founding fathers could not possibly foresee the advancement of weaponry, i.e. Mk. 19s and such, then I offer to you an argument of numerical order. We should first handle the First Amendment in the same 20/20 hindsight way, understanding that there is no conceivable way Adams or Madison would have signed on to protect gay porn or the Moors in their country. Only after we crap all over the First Amendment should we address the shortcomings of the Second Amendment's limited language that has nothing to do with hunting or the shooting sports.

 

[namedpipes]

I've already stated in this forum the particulars of that. And you're right, I don't care. You have a great day.

I'm having a great day! Thanks!

NP: 1. WE do not KNOW that you CC. YOU have stated that.
B: You don't know and I don't care what you believe or not. It has absolutely no impact on me whatsoever.

Right. Except you were making an attempt at a logic argument. YOU postulated that WE know something to be true. Clearly this is false.

NP: 2. The next sentence parses two ways, which invalidates everything anyway, but let's make believe it made sense. Your belief that you have a right to self defense does NOT mean that is the reason you CC. AGAIN you miss a step in the chain of logic.
B: MY belief that I have a right of self-defense has in fact led me to obtain an unrestricted LTC A and CC.It is the reason that I CC.

Fine, but that's not what you SAID. Do you even read your OWN posts?

NP: 3. While your belief that YOU have such a right at best *suggests* you believe others have such a right it is not a proof. Rumor has it that John Rosenthal and Mayor Bloomberg have CC permits, neither of whom would allow us to have them, if they would have their way.
B: You can believe or not believe anything you like. It is of absolutely no consequence to me. Rosenthal and Bloomberg are not at issue or relevant to what we are discussing.

They were offered as cases in point, why your argument is full of excrement.

 

[Baikal49]

I'm having a great day! Thanks!

NP: 1. WE do not KNOW that you CC. YOU have stated that.
B: You don't know and I don't care what you believe or not. It has absolutely no impact on me whatsoever.

Right. Except you were making an attempt at a logic argument. YOU postulated that WE know something to be true. Clearly this is false.

NP: 2. The next sentence parses two ways, which invalidates everything anyway, but let's make believe it made sense. Your belief that you have a right to self defense does NOT mean that is the reason you CC. AGAIN you miss a step in the chain of logic.
B: MY belief that I have a right of self-defense has in fact led me to obtain an unrestricted LTC A and CC.It is the reason that I CC.

Fine, but that's not what you SAID. Do you even read your OWN posts?

NP: 3. While your belief that YOU have such a right at best *suggests* you believe others have such a right it is not a proof. Rumor has it that John Rosenthal and Mayor Bloomberg have CC permits, neither of whom would allow us to have them, if they would have their way.
B: You can believe or not believe anything you like. It is of absolutely no consequence to me. Rosenthal and Bloomberg are not at issue or relevant to what we are discussing.

They were offered as cases in point, why your argument is full of excrement.

Whatever..........................

 

[calsdad]

It's not a simple question particularly when you consider the impact of Goedel's Theorem in relation to law and absolutes with the theorem being a mathematical proof that no formal system can encompass all truths.

Are you a believer in Natural Law or are you a Kelsenist? That would probably be a good place to begin a discussion.

We just began the discussion when I asked a simple question - and you responded with a bunch of theoretical bullshit and obfuscation.

The thing you ought to be asking yourself is: why can't I just answer a simple question?? What's wrong with me? Why did I spend so much time in school having my head filled with crap?

Life is not really THAT HARD. Some things are not that complicated to figure out. Referring to obscure theories and mathematical computations about things like simple civil rights are tactics typically employed by "progressives" - who are essentially using these tactics as a smokescreen while they search for an excuse to get rid of something they don't like.

Welcome to another out-me thread.

 

[xtry51]

We just began the discussion when I asked a simple question - and you responded with a bunch of theoretical bullshit and obfuscation.

The thing you ought to be asking yourself is: why can't I just answer a simple question?? What's wrong with me? Why did I spend so much time in school having my head filled with crap?

Life is not really THAT HARD. Some things are not that complicated to figure out. Referring to obscure theories and mathematical computations about things like simple civil rights are tactics typically employed by "progressives" - who are essentially using these tactics as a smokescreen while they search for an excuse to get rid of something they don't like.

Welcome to another out-me thread.

You must spread some Reputation around before giving it to calsdad again.

 

[whatluck]

Goedel's mathematical proof posited that no formal system can contain all truths. The issue often debated is what constitutes a formal system outside of pure mathematics that may be impacted by the incompleteness theory. In Kelsen's view, everything that the Nazis did during their years in power was legally proper; the laws were passed in accordance with the procedural requirements of the time. When the Nuremberg war crime trials took place, the appeal was to violations of universal human principles of justice that were effectively based on Natural Law. That was ridiculed by Kelsen as an unprovable legal basis because the existence of God, from whom Natural Law derives, can not be proven.

What Goedel's theorem does is, in Kelsen's own terms, not appealing to natural law, is it raises the possibility that a truth existed outside the Nazi legal system that could totally negate the laws the Nazis implemented. The difficulty with Goedel's theorem is that it can not tell us what those truths outside the system are. It only gives us the ability to deny the claim that what the law is is what it is and no more. It cuts into any literalist interpretation of any law be it from a dictatorship like that of Nazi Germany or someone arguing for a static, literalist view of the rights found in our BoR.

There are implications for other formal systems such as are found in religion. Even language is a formal system that may be impacted. Hope this very basic explanation helps.

Uhm, what exactly does mathematical calculation have to do with god given rights?

Your tactics to confuse are only met with mild amusement.

Maybe you should go back to troll school.

 

[calsdad]

Ahh, 1930's German legal science... What is not to love.

Having lived all my life it with a family of lawyers, I can tell you that law has an overinflated sense of is own importance. It's logic, while often rigorous, is equally often flawed in its base assumptions. The same can be seen in progressive politics. It is often the case that they use logic from some point forward to their conclusion, but ignore profound and obvious structural failures in their base assumptions.

They treat their logic as science, but it is religion because of the articles of faith at the root.

I appreciate the attempt it makes to be "just" by applying the same logic until it is overwhelmed and forced to change, but unfortunately legal "science" and "justice" may overlap, they are far from the same thing and many lawyers and legislators miss this.

The contortions and twists and turns that lawyers and progressives use to try and justify the stupid crap they would like to do remind me of my father - the MIT scientist.

A few years back I ripped the roof off my house - and added a second floor. He helped along with some friends. Understand that I was now living in a house - WITH NO ROOF ON IT - protected by nothing but blue tarps, in the middle of a summer when we got a number of violent thunderstorms. So what I'm basically dealing with is the potential LOSS of the house and it's contents - if the project cannot get completed.

So my father - who lived a life of dealing with abstract science and physics - but does have a grounding in some practical things - could not seem to understand the urgency of the situation. As we worked thru framing he would often detour into obtuse explanations of the physics of the proper angle of the cut and so forth. After a few days of this - and delays caused by it - one day I had to just tell him:

Dad - seriously I need a roof on my house - just pound the f*&%ing nails!

Life is not about obtuse theories by German philosophers who sat around in dark rooms thinking about crap they knew nothing about in reality.

 

[In God We Trust]

I think nukes are a terrible example as a hypothetical because someone capable of building one (and crazy enough to build/own one) is really not gonna care about a felony conviction if they got caught.

Rather, what you should be asking is something like "Should people be allowed to own fragmentation grenades?" After all, the unit cost is low enough that a human being could probably afford a few of them, among other things. They are also a weapon suited for individual warfare, which is what some would argue the scope of the 2nd really covers. Stuff you can carry as a person.

-Mike




-Mike

Thanks for the good reply Mike. I had a few long discussions with people about the 2A last week and the antis and semi antis always use the nuke argument with me.
I know the NES partyline vote is that a 12 year old convicted felon on parole should be able to buy a nuke. Somehow a completely unregulated free market would prevent this hypothetical guy from doing mass murder. This is of course horseshit. The opinions on this board when guns and regulation come up often go from libertarian to anarchist in the blink if an eye.
Sent from my DROIDX using Tapatalk 2

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Goedel's mathematical proof posited that no formal system can contain all truths. The issue often debated is what constitutes a formal system outside of pure mathematics that may be impacted by the incompleteness theory. In Kelsen's view, everything that the Nazis did during their years in power was legally proper; the laws were passed in accordance with the procedural requirements of the time. When the Nuremberg war crime trials took place, the appeal was to violations of universal human principles of justice that were effectively based on Natural Law. That was ridiculed by Kelsen as an unprovable legal basis because the existence of God, from whom Natural Law derives, can not be proven.

What Goedel's theorem does is, in Kelsen's own terms, not appealing to natural law, is it raises the possibility that a truth existed outside the Nazi legal system that could totally negate the laws the Nazis implemented. The difficulty with Goedel's theorem is that it can not tell us what those truths outside the system are. It only gives us the ability to deny the claim that what the law is is what it is and no more. It cuts into any literalist interpretation of any law be it from a dictatorship like that of Nazi Germany or someone arguing for a static, literalist view of the rights found in our BoR.

There are implications for other formal systems such as are found in religion. Even language is a formal system that may be impacted. Hope this very basic explanation helps.

Since you can not make logical sense what you write is nonsensical. Enjoy your day.

Goedel's mathematical proof posited that no formal system can contain all truths.

You make no sense whatsoever. If I am following what you are saying, slavery is a possibility? Are you officially stating, that slavery is on the table according to your beliefs since the freedoms that people inherit from their God are automatically thrown out by some bull$hit mathematical theorem? By your theory, only an elite group of "intellectuals" know better than the rest of the populace and what is good for the few applies to the whole.

...unprovable legal basis because the existence of God, from whom Natural Law derives, can not be proven.

Yup, Nazis and there is no God. Awesome. There is no hope for you, sir.