@AThousandYoung saidThere is a thing called squatters rights but I think it only applies after a certain amount of time has passed before the squatter is found.
You heard it here folks. According to Mott, if you go to your own property and there’s a squatter inside who put a lock on YOUR door, the squatter is justified in killing you by Castle Doctrine if you take bolt cutters to that lock.
@no1marauder saidI came all the way back to page two here to see what you and wgrass are on to here. A parent should be able to make ALL decisions about their children . including pronouns..What fun. I don't know the facts of the case , don't care, but there is NO WAY that the populace,,kids, teacher, candle-stick maker should be required to EVER respect or subscribe to desires of the student to be referred to that way. Natural Law may apply!!!!!
So you're opposed to laws preventing parents from getting gender affirming treatments for their minor children? That's the government having control over a parent/child relationship and decisions, isn't it?
Now, as to parents deciding to mutilate their children, I say absolutely not, as it violates the rights (and natural rights!!) of the child. Note that an unborn baby (it could be removed from the mother and live at 27 weeks , it is a baby, no discussion there) an unborn baby has a right to live, and each of you in favor of abortion.......marauder? Sue?, et al??...... are all for stripping away the rights of the baby , the right to life. Murder, marauder.
3 edits
@AThousandYoung saidSquatters rights is a whole new issue you have introduced trying to have a point. Moving the goal posts if you will.
You heard it here folks. According to Mott, if you go to your own property and there’s a squatter inside who put a lock on YOUR door, the squatter is justified in killing you by Castle Doctrine if you take bolt cutters to that lock.
The facts are squatter rights vary by state.
In some states the squatter becomes the legal owner.
Your point is meaningless unless you specify where.
And breaking in on someone isn’t a good idea, regardless of ownership. Laws dont matter when you are dead.
@wildgrass saidThat’s not what Mott said. Mott said anybody who breaks in on anybody else can be justifiably killed no matter who owns what. No special “squatters rights” laws are necessary.
There is a thing called squatters rights but I think it only applies after a certain amount of time has passed before the squatter is found.
@AThousandYoung saidAre you so stupid that you think people can just break in on others? 😂
That’s not what Mott said. Mott said anybody who breaks in on anybody else can be justifiably killed no matter who owns what. No special “squatters rights” laws are necessary.
@AThousandYoung saidWhat have we learned in this thread?
Thanks for asking us to elaborate. This is turning into a very educational thread for the masses. Your hostility does not hurt the education process.
You and marrider have proved you believe in God, you have proved this is a nation founded on Christianity.
Funny how the truth comes out sometimes 😉
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople said
What have we learned in this thread?
You and marrider have proved you believe in God, you have proved this is a nation founded on Christianity.
Funny how the truth comes out sometimes 😉
Treaty of Tripoli:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation, it is declared by the parties that no pretext arising from religious opinions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
@Mott-The-Hoople saidI'm glad you have come to understand how the right to personal property works and how it is not the same as legal ownership.
Are you so stupid that you think people can just break in on others? 😂
@Mott-The-Hoople saidNeither follows from this conversation.
What have we learned in this thread?
You and marrider have proved you believe in God, you have proved this is a nation founded on Christianity.
Funny how the truth comes out sometimes 😉
@no1marauder saidBoth do.
Neither follows from this conversation.
As God is the giver of natural rights as mentioned in the preamble.
How can you believe there are natural rights if there is no God?
@AThousandYoung said“The treaty is often cited in discussions regarding the role of religion in United States government due to a clause in Article 11 of the English language translation that was ratified by the Senate and signed by the president, which states, "[t]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."[4] However, modern translations of the official Arabic treaty confirm that no such phrase exists in the text.[5]”Treaty of Tripoli:
As the government of the United States of America is not in any sense founded on the Christian Religion,-as it has in itself no character of enmity against the laws, religion or tranquility of Musselmen [Muslims],-and as the said States never have entered into any war or act of hostility against any Mehomitan [Muslim] nation, it is declared ...[text shortened]... inions shall ever produce an interruption of the harmony existing between the two countries.
https://everything.explained.today/Treaty_of_Tripoli/
@Mott-The-Hoople saidEasily though my religious views are a bit more complex than simple atheism.
Both do.
As God is the giver of natural rights as mentioned in the preamble.
How can you believe there are natural rights if there is no God?
The Framers believed that God created Nature and that Nature's rules therefore flow from Him (ancient head gods invariably are male).
One can believe Nature has rules without it being created by a God.
There were Christians on both sides of the American Revolution.
1 edit
@Mott-The-Hoople saidSorry, from your own source:
“The treaty is often cited in discussions regarding the role of religion in United States government due to a clause in Article 11 of the English language translation that was ratified by the Senate and signed by the president, which states, "[t]he Government of the United States of America is not, in any sense, founded on the Christian religion."[4] However, modern t ...[text shortened]... that no such phrase exists in the text.[5]”
https://everything.explained.today/Treaty_of_Tripoli/
However, it is the English text that was ratified by Congress. Miller says, "the Barlow translation is that which was submitted to the Senate (American State Papers, Foreign Relations, II, 18–19) and which is printed in the Statutes at Large and in treaty collections generally; it is that English text which in the United States has always been deemed the text of the treaty."[11]
So the US Congress ratified the treaty with the language ATY cited bolstering his point.
There is also Constitutional language barring religious tests for public office:
but no religious Test shall ever be required as a Qualification to any Office or public Trust under the United States.
US Constitution Article VI
@Mott-The-Hoople saidMott is correct.
Squatters rights is a whole new issue you have introduced trying to have a point. Moving the goal posts if you will.
The facts are squatter rights vary by state.
In some states the squatter becomes the legal owner.
Your point is meaningless unless you specify where.
And breaking in on someone isn’t a good idea, regardless of ownership. Laws dont matter when you are dead.