750 replies to this topic

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

radiomike, on 17 January 2013 - 09:46 PM, said:

It's this type of sentiment that drives libertarians like myself crazy.  People sit there in their towers espousing all sorts of recommendations based on their belief that they know what is in the interest of the 'public good', when in fact it is no business of theirs in the first place.  Our constitution is, as Obama begrudgingly agrees, a 'charter of negative liberties', and not positive liberties which modern day progressives hope to eventually mold it into.  The beautiful thing about negative liberty is that it allows the individual to object to a particular freedom based on moral, religious, etc. grounds by not taking part of the freedom in question.  By claiming to know what is best for others, and support legislation stating such, you are willing to take away the ability of the individual to object to liberties they disagree with due to the positive liberties which would be a result of such a world view.  Who will we be to decide what is in our, or the public goods, best interest at that point?

To anyone claiming that people don't 'need' a high powered 'assault' weapon, I ask who died and put them in charge, and since when is it any of their business?  I love owning guns.  They're my security systems, hunting tools, and target shooters.  Why would you care that I love them so much?  Exactly, you shouldn't. Just as much as I don't care if you like guns or not.

I fully understand that I have to amend the constitution to achieve my goals. But getting past that, and working within the framework of the current Constitution, I doubt you and I would really argue about whether or not there are restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I think there are things we both would agree absolutely should be restricted. Following that agreement, we're really only arguing about where the line should be. At that point, we're both trying to prescribe what we think is best for the public good.

No one died to put me in charge, I'm using my 1st amendment rights to try and create a 28th amendment. That's the beauty of our Constitution. If I can convince enough of my fellow Americans that there is a better way, we get to change without a coup. It's awesome.

[drunken idiot]

LastPommerFan, on 18 January 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

I fully understand that I have to amend the constitution to achieve my goals. But getting past that, and working within the framework of the current Constitution, I doubt you and I would really argue about whether or not there are restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I think there are things we both would agree absolutely should be restricted. Following that agreement, we're really only arguing about where the line should be. At that point, we're both trying to prescribe what we think is best for the public good.

No one died to put me in charge, I'm using my 1st amendment rights to try and create a 28th amendment. That's the beauty of our Constitution. If I can convince enough of my fellow Americans that there is a better way, we get to change without a coup. It's awesome.

I would be all for it, if you actually had a better way. From what I have seen, your ways are not better and would not prevent anything similar to the gun incidents that have occurred lately. Kind of like Cuomo's ways and going to be Biden/Obama's ways are not going to hamper a criminal from being a criminal. Whatever, keep pushing though!

Edited by Freakpop, 18 January 2013 - 09:28 AM.

[d4rksabre]

Freakpop, on 18 January 2013 - 09:27 AM, said:

I would be all for it, if you actually had a better way. From what I have seen, your ways are not better and would not prevent anything similar to the gun incidents that have occurred lately. Kind of like Cuomo's ways and going to be Biden/Obama's ways are not going to hamper a criminal from being a criminal. Whatever, keep pushing though!

It must be hard being a prophet.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

I don't buy the, without guns all the same people will die, just with different weapons. I think one key piece here is that when people have power they behave differently. Having a gun in their hand gives people an incredible sense of power. Far more power than wielding a knife or a rock or a hammer.

I don't buy the, even if you make them illegal, criminals will still get them argument, either. It just doesn't make any sense. There will always be black markets, for everything, yet we still prohibit things. Mostly in an attempt, usually successfully, to reduce their prevalence. Even the 18th amendment was successful at reducing the availability of alcohol. Sure, there was still a bunch of booze, but there was way way less.

[drunken idiot]

d4rksabre, on 18 January 2013 - 09:34 AM, said:

It must be hard being a prophet.

No not really! You should know!

[d4rksabre]

Freakpop, on 18 January 2013 - 12:17 PM, said:

No not really! You should know!

I haven't predicted a thing in this thread, so I have no idea what you're getting at.

[radiomike]

LastPommerFan, on 18 January 2013 - 08:46 AM, said:

I fully understand that I have to amend the constitution to achieve my goals. But getting past that, and working within the framework of the current Constitution, I doubt you and I would really argue about whether or not there are restrictions to the 2nd amendment. I think there are things we both would agree absolutely should be restricted. Following that agreement, we're really only arguing about where the line should be. At that point, we're both trying to prescribe what we think is best for the public good.

No one died to put me in charge, I'm using my 1st amendment rights to try and create a 28th amendment. That's the beauty of our Constitution. If I can convince enough of my fellow Americans that there is a better way, we get to change without a coup. It's awesome.

The key difference being who we believe determines what is best for the 'public good'.  To me, negative liberties allow society do not only determine what is good for themselves individually, but as a society through free markets.  Deferring to the government to determine what's 'good' through essentially mob rule does nothing to promote liberty and does everything to restrict it.

You say that even hunting isn't a good enough excuse/defense to want to own guns - tell that to people who rely on it for their livelihood (yes, people like this still exist), or those who view harvesting their own meat as a personal and ethical choice over processed garbage sold in stores.  I know a few hunters who only eat meat which they kill themselves.  Remove guns and then what? You're removing their liberty to make a decision based on moral/ethical grounds due to fact that a majority have decided they know what is best for them.

Edited by radiomike, 18 January 2013 - 01:42 PM.

[TrueBluePhD]

radiomike, on 18 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

The key difference being who we believe determines what is best for the 'public good'.  To me, negative liberties allow society do not only determine what is good for themselves individually, but as a society through free markets.  Deferring to the government to determine what's 'good' through essentially mob rule does nothing to promote liberty and does everything to restrict it.

It's not deferring to the government.  It's the majority acting through legitimate democratic processes provided for by the Constitution.  The government in itself is a market through which competing interests attempt to control in order to secure particularized benefits.  It's pluralism, and it's at the heart of representative government.

[K-9]

TrueBluePhD, on 18 January 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

It's not deferring to the government.  It's the majority acting through legitimate democratic processes provided for by the Constitution.  The government in itself is a market through which competing interests attempt to control in order to secure particularized benefits.  It's pluralism, and it's at the heart of representative government.

I vote this as the most salient post in the thread.

Moving forward it will be interesting to see if the gun lobby and other proponents enact changes through the same democratic processes.

I urge everyone to visit the Jeffeson Memorial in DC and read the incsriptions. His anology of governments and laws to that of a jacket that needs to be taken in and let out according to changing societal values is and always will be key to a democratic form of government. It's why I never bought the idea that our Constitution isn't a living document. It amazes me that strict constructionists don't seem to grasp that very simple argument.

[d4rksabre]

K-9, on 18 January 2013 - 02:33 PM, said:

I vote this as the most salient post in the thread.

Moving forward it will be interesting to see if the gun lobby and other proponents enact changes through the same democratic processes.

I urge everyone to visit the Jeffeson Memorial in DC and read the incsriptions. His anology of governments and laws to that of a jacket that needs to be taken in and let out according to changing societal values is and always will be key to a democratic form of government. It's why I never bought the idea that our Constitution isn't a living document. It amazes me that strict constructionists don't seem to grasp that very simple argument.

[MattPie]

radiomike, on 18 January 2013 - 01:40 PM, said:

You say that even hunting isn't a good enough excuse/defense to want to own guns - tell that to people who rely on it for their livelihood (yes, people like this still exist), or those who view harvesting their own meat as a personal and ethical choice over processed garbage sold in stores.  I know a few hunters who only eat meat which they kill themselves.  Remove guns and then what? You're removing their liberty to make a decision based on moral/ethical grounds due to fact that a majority have decided they know what is best for them.

While I get it, it's a tough call. But, your hunter friends could hunt with bows. Or looking into organic or local meats. Or just not eat meat. FWIW, I don't see hunters and hunting weapons as a problem. But we're not really talking about that. I've never hunted, but I'd be really surprised if you were able to get off more than a shot or three before your prey is dead or gone. You don't need an assault weapon for that, that's what is being talked about.

I'd love nothing more than to be able to ride down some roads as fast as my skill and the bike (or car) I'm using is possible. But that would be really bad for other road users and society in general. It's all a balance.

TrueBluePhD, on 18 January 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

It's not deferring to the government.  It's the majority acting through legitimate democratic processes provided for by the Constitution.  The government in itself is a market through which competing interests attempt to control in order to secure particularized benefits.  It's pluralism, and it's at the heart of representative government.

Exactly. We all sacrifice some liberty so that society can function. Otherwise we'd be the third world where people do whatever they want. My fiance just got back from Mexico. There's a guy there that apparently drives around town at 7am with chains dragging behind his truck and a loudspeaker announcing what meats he has for sale today. That's freedom, and I want no part in it.

[radiomike]

TrueBluePhD, on 18 January 2013 - 01:55 PM, said:

It's not deferring to the government.  It's the majority acting through legitimate democratic processes provided for by the Constitution.  The government in itself is a market through which competing interests attempt to control in order to secure particularized benefits.  It's pluralism, and it's at the heart of representative government.

The Constitution, through negative liberties, is what allows pluralism to flourish. Pluralism will allow for competing interests and value systems to co-exist while prohibiting any one single value system to 'win-out'.  A belief in abolishing the second amendment and banning guns for everyone is not pluralism in action, it is majority (mob) rule.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

radiomike, on 18 January 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

The Constitution, through negative liberties, is what allows pluralism to flourish. Pluralism will allow for competing interests and value systems to co-exist while prohibiting any one single value system to 'win-out'.  A belief in abolishing the second amendment and banning guns for everyone is not pluralism in action, it is majority (mob) rule.

At some point, even a libertarian has to be concerned not only with what the government does to it's citizens, but what the citizens do to each other. This is one of those times.

[LGR4GM]

radiomike, on 18 January 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

The Constitution, through negative liberties, is what allows pluralism to flourish. Pluralism will allow for competing interests and value systems to co-exist while prohibiting any one single value system to 'win-out'.  A belief in abolishing the second amendment and banning guns for everyone is not pluralism in action, it is majority (mob) rule.

Do you believe that Guns should be limited, regulated, and controlled?  Because that is what ppl are discussing. Limits, not bans. Gun lobbyists have been "winning out" for years.  It is harder for me to get a car and drive it legally than it is for me to walk down to the gun store and buy a semi-auto rifle that fires a 5.56mm round at roughly the rate of 3 per second depending on how fast I squeeze the trigger.  The second amendment is not being taking away, you can still own these weapons but you should be licensed and required by law to be trained to store and use them properly.

I like guns, but I don't own one for the simple fact that I am not qualified to. I have not had any training to own something that can kill 20ppl in under a minute.  The fact that some ppl do and no one really requires checks or training is sickening.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Everyone being able to buy and use guns with no training or anything does not a "well regulated Militia" make.

[radiomike]

LGR4GM, on 18 January 2013 - 03:16 PM, said:

Do you believe that Guns should be limited, regulated, and controlled?  Because that is what ppl are discussing. Limits, not bans. Gun lobbyists have been "winning out" for years.  It is harder for me to get a car and drive it legally than it is for me to walk down to the gun store and buy a semi-auto rifle that fires a 5.56mm round at roughly the rate of 3 per second depending on how fast I squeeze the trigger.  The second amendment is not being taking away, you can still own these weapons but you should be licensed and required by law to be trained to store and use them properly.

I like guns, but I don't own one for the simple fact that I am not qualified to. I have not had any training to own something that can kill 20ppl in under a minute.  The fact that some ppl do and no one really requires checks or training is sickening.

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."  Everyone being able to buy and use guns with no training or anything does not a "well regulated Militia" make.

To clarify, my last few posts have been in response to The Last of Pommers Fans call to amend the Constitution to ban all firearms.

[TrueBluePhD]

radiomike, on 18 January 2013 - 03:03 PM, said:

The Constitution, through negative liberties, is what allows pluralism to flourish. Pluralism will allow for competing interests and value systems to co-exist while prohibiting any one single value system to 'win-out'.  A belief in abolishing the second amendment and banning guns for everyone is not pluralism in action, it is majority (mob) rule.

The Constitution provides for majority rule, which is a necessary component of any democratic system; what it protects against is majority tyranny.  One group getting what it wants one time on one issue is not majority tyranny.  Majority tyranny results when one factions always gets everything it wants without regard for the minority and where the minority has no power at all.  This must take place across issues and across time, not at a single snapshot in time on a single issue.  Why do you think it's so bloody hard to amend the Constitution?  The process it requires, combined with the geographic, demographic, and political diversity in this country inherently prevents majority tyranny from happening.  If a large enough majority, across a large enough number of interests is somehow assembled to abolish the Second Amendment, then almost by definition it is not tyrannical.  The only way that's tyrannical is if that coalition agrees on a singular position on all issues and then proceeds to legislate and get 100% of what it wants on all issues.  The Founders never intended for the majority to never get what it wants--they simply wanted to protect against a single majority getting all of what it wants all of the time.

You're conflating a normative judgment about a democratic outcome with the process by which that outcome is produced.  You dislike a hypothetical outcome, but that doesn't make the process tyrannical, or mob rule, or undemocratic.  Sure  somebody can make the argument that the Second Amendment is necessary to ensure the continuance of democracy (to which I would vehemently disagree), but it does not logically follow that if the Second Amendment is abolished that the abolition itself is undemocratic.

Lastly, even if we were to assume your argument is correct, it leaves you with quite the logical conundrum:  if the Second Amendment being repealed/abolished through the Constitutionally-provided for amendment process is mob rule or majority tyranny, then the Second Amendment itself was the result of mob rule or majority tyranny and is no less valid than its abolition.

[K-9]

TrueBluePhD, on 18 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

The Constitution provides for majority rule, which is a necessary component of any democratic system; what it protects against is majority tyranny.  One group getting what it wants one time on one issue is not majority tyranny.  Majority tyranny results when one factions always gets everything it wants without regard for the minority and where the minority has no power at all.  This must take place across issues and across time, not at a single snapshot in time on a single issue.  Why do you think it's so bloody hard to amend the Constitution?  The process it requires, combined with the geographic, demographic, and political diversity in this country inherently prevents majority tyranny from happening.  If a large enough majority, across a large enough number of interests is somehow assembled to abolish the Second Amendment, then almost by definition it is not tyrannical.  The only way that's tyrannical is if that coalition agrees on a singular position on all issues and then proceeds to legislate and get 100% of what it wants on all issues.  The Founders never intended for the majority to never get what it wants--they simply wanted to protect against a single majority getting all of what it wants all of the time.

You're conflating a normative judgment about a democratic outcome with the process by which that outcome is produced.  You dislike a hypothetical outcome, but that doesn't make the process tyrannical, or mob rule, or undemocratic.  Sure  somebody can make the argument that the Second Amendment is necessary to ensure the continuance of democracy (to which I would vehemently disagree), but it does not logically follow that if the Second Amendment is abolished that the abolition itself is undemocratic.

Lastly, even if we were to assume your argument is correct, it leaves you with quite the logical conundrum:  if the Second Amendment being repealed/abolished through the Constitutionally-provided for amendment process is mob rule or majority tyranny, then the Second Amendment itself was the result of mob rule or majority tyranny and is no less valid than its abolition.

That is downright elegant.

[TrueBluePhD]

K-9, on 18 January 2013 - 05:09 PM, said:

That is downright elegant.

It would be more elegant if I wrote "no more valid than its abolition" as I had intended .  But I think the point got across nonetheless

[radiomike]

TrueBluePhD, on 18 January 2013 - 04:29 PM, said:

Lastly, even if we were to assume your argument is correct, it leaves you with quite the logical conundrum:  if the Second Amendment being repealed/abolished through the Constitutionally-provided for amendment process is mob rule or majority tyranny, then the Second Amendment itself was the result of mob rule or majority tyranny and is no less valid than its abolition.

Although at a glance this appears to be a compelling (and elegant) conclusion, it doesn't hold much water for 2 reasons:

A. The Bill of Rights was adopted to appease anti-fedralists concerns, after the Constitution was ratified.  It was not a result of mob rule, but rather factions making their voices heard (see: pluralism).  

B. Suppose the Bill of Rights was a product of mob rule, instituting negative liberties would seem rather unselfish of them to relinquish such control.  The very nature of negative liberties protect them from mob rule in the first place, so it would seem rather inconsistent with what you are arguing.  The resulting amendments were not oppressive or coercive, as is the case with true mob rule which the founders were so determined to protect against.

[wjag]

"Officials say a recently hired security officer left a firearm unattended in a Michigan charter school bathroom, local media reported.

Follow @NBCNews
School officials at The Chatfield School in Lapeer, Mich., told mlive.com  the officer left an unloaded weapon in a restroom "for a few moments" on Monday. No children were put in danger or exposed to the handgun, school director Matt Young told mlive.com.
In a Jan 7 newsletter, the school told families it had hired the school security officer, a veteran of the Lapeer County Sheriff Department who had retired."


Uh huh...Tick.tick.tick.tick

Edited by wjag, 19 January 2013 - 06:06 AM.

[deluca67]

wjag, on 19 January 2013 - 06:03 AM, said:

"Officials say a recently hired security officer left a firearm unattended in a Michigan charter school bathroom, local media reported.

Follow @NBCNews
School officials at The Chatfield School in Lapeer, Mich., told mlive.com  the officer left an unloaded weapon in a restroom "for a few moments" on Monday. No children were put in danger or exposed to the handgun, school director Matt Young told mlive.com.
In a Jan 7 newsletter, the school told families it had hired the school security officer, a veteran of the Lapeer County Sheriff Department who had retired."


Uh huh...Tick.tick.tick.tick

The sad thing is that this is neither shocking nor unexpected. There is this dream that Jason Bourne is going to be roaming school hallways protecting the children when the reality is that it will be someone closer to Barney Fife.

John Stewart had a great point last night, a lot of these people you hear coming out screaming about their imaginary 2nd Amendment rights also supported The Patriot Act which violates more rights in more ways than they could have ever imagined.

[radiomike]

DeLuca67, on 19 January 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

John Stewart had a great point last night, a lot of these people you hear coming out screaming about their imaginary 2nd Amendment rights also supported The Patriot Act which violates more rights in more ways than they could have ever imagined.

Logical inconsistencies are abound in any political debate - and what's imaginary about the 2nd amendment?

[wjag]

Yesterday in Far Rockaway, Queens

Mom sent here second grader to school with a flare gun, pistol and ammo clip.  Second grader passed off the flare gun to a friend when he found the weapons in his backpack.  Mom claims she had BP night before and had guns in there for protection when out and about in Queens.  Simply forgot to remove them before her son took his BP to school.  Gun was not loaded, but clip was.  Mom realizes her mistake and notifies school administration.  School goes into lockdown and weapons are safely retrieved.  Mom is arrested for child endangerment and illegal possession of a firearm.

tick..tick..tick..tick..

Edited by wjag, 19 January 2013 - 09:35 AM.

[d4rksabre]

To be fair, you can't fix stupid.

[deluca67]

radiomike, on 19 January 2013 - 09:18 AM, said:

Logical inconsistencies are abound in any political debate - and what's imaginary about the 2nd amendment?

That it is all encompassing. That it somehow includes an individuals right to own instruments of mass murder.

[d4rksabre]

Seeing some pictures from a 2nd Amendment Rally in Buffalo floating around my Facebook. Of course there's some halfwit with a swastika sign.

[Glass Case Of Emotion]

d4rksabre, on 19 January 2013 - 01:52 PM, said:

Seeing some pictures from a 2nd Amendment Rally in Buffalo floating around my Facebook. Of course there's some halfwit with a swastika sign.

That sign, in its american context, and the inclusion of the 2nd amendment in the BoR are more closely related than most americans would like to admit.

Edited by LastPommerFan, 19 January 2013 - 02:29 PM.

[weave]

DeLuca67, on 19 January 2013 - 06:37 AM, said:

The sad thing is that this is neither shocking nor unexpected. There is this dream that Jason Bourne is going to be roaming school hallways protecting the children when the reality is that it will be someone closer to Barney Fife.

John Stewart had a great point last night, a lot of these people you hear coming out screaming about their imaginary 2nd Amendment rights also supported The Patriot Act which violates more rights in more ways than they could have ever imagined.

The Patriot Act comes from the same sort of mindset as those crying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.  I am often amazed and disappointed by those who would gladly exchange their liberties and privacy for a sense of security that is almost entirely false.

[SwampD]

weave, on 19 January 2013 - 05:06 PM, said:

The Patriot Act comes from the same sort of mindset as those crying to eliminate the 2nd Amendment.  I am often amazed and disappointed by those who would gladly exchange their liberties and privacy for a sense of security that is almost entirely false.

I agree.

I just wanted to say (before chz locks the thread tomorrow) that I have really appreciated your input in this thread.  While I haven't agreed with everything, it was invaluable to have someone with your take on things in the mix.  It's so easy when something like this happens to just say ban them all, but when you see it actually effects real, honest people, it changes things.  Unfortunately, they don't make laws because of responsible people like you.  They make them for the irresponsible jackasses that ruin it for everyone,.. and you get burned.

[Grumpy]

I've just joined but read all 19 pages. Wow!  I hope the thread is closed.  I will only say that if you truly believe legislation can solve this problem, you are very naive.  Are there some good points on the anti side? Yes!  However, I just see this as a very sad occurence and the left using the tradgedy to advance an agenda they have held for a long time.  Armed guard? No guns?  Every elementary school in my town is one floor with all glass  windows in every room?  These nuts are smart, and will find a way to kill.  All this sounds like political rhetoric to me and smacks of shooting spitballs at a battleship.  We have social issues and A HUGE population.  I wish I had an answer, but knee jerk reaction and political agendas and elections shouldn't be involved.  I guess now I am naive.

[d4rksabre]

Grumpys defeatist post aside, I want to echo Swamp and say that I've really appreciated the many thoughtful posters who contributed positively to the discussion in this thread. This is a very edgy topic and one where emotions are heavily invested. We all come up through life with different values and worldviews, and when they collide in the forum of politics it can be quite difficult to keep civil. Many of you have done a masterful and elegant job of presenting your feelings and have shown why this forum continues to host some of the smartest members of any on the web.

If I could lock this thread right now from the mobile site I would, but I can't so I just wanted to get my last word in and say thank you. Also, thank you to our forum mods for allowing us to have this and other no holds barred threads over the last months. I think we're all a little closer because of it.

Again, thank you.