Why do [some] conservatives continue to insist that the 2nd amendment forbids any gun control legislation, even those as simplistic and precedented as background checks?
To be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute. Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander. Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law. Not even the 13 amendment is absolute. In all these instances, exceptions are made when your freedoms are outweighed by those of others, or the general welfare of society.
So yes, you have the right to own a gun. This does not mean that the government enact absolutely no regulations to qualify such a right; you know, such as how we already do not let minors own firearms. NRA logic would not be taken seriously were it by a guy who falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who made death threats. No other right is unqualified, so exactly why do you think bearing arms should be exceptional? Are you that enamored with hunting? Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?
As a result, what both sides of the debate should be doing is answering the question: will a gun law cause more harm than good? Look at the empirical data and studies. If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment. If a regulation will not save lives, then it should not be enacted. Why do certain activists believe that the 2nd amendment is actually more sacrosanct than the 1st, or 13th?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Why do [some] conservatives continue to insist that the 2nd amendment forbids any gun control legislation, even those as simplistic and precedented as background checks?
To be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute. Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander. Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law. Not even the 13 amendment is absolute. In all these instances, exceptions are made when your freedoms are outweighed by those of others, or the general welfare of society.
So yes, you have the right to own a gun. This does not mean that the government enact absolutely no regulations to qualify such a right; you know, such as how we already do not let minors own firearms. NRA logic would not be taken seriously were it by a guy who falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who made death threats. No other right is unqualified, so exactly why do you think bearing arms should be exceptional? Are you that enamored with hunting? Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?
As a result, what both sides of the debate should be doing is answering the question: will a gun law cause more harm than good? Look at the empirical data and studies. If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment. If a regulation will not save lives, then it should not be enacted. Why do certain activists believe that the 2nd amendment is actually more sacrosanct than the 1st, or 13th?
Please show us one -- just one -- proposed or enacted gun law that has saved a single life or prevented a single crime.
Just one.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 11:06:52 AM
Please show us one -- just one -- proposed or enacted gun law that has saved a single life or prevented a single crime.
Just one.
:rolleyes: Way to miss the point. I haven't made my mind up myself about gun legislation; I just don't buy into the ludicrous notion that the 2nd amendment is uniquely sacrosanct.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
:rolleyes: Way to miss the point. I haven't made my mind up myself about gun legislation; I just don't buy into the ludicrous notion that the 2nd amendment is uniquely sacrosanct.
Unalienable rights. Does that mean anything to an atheist?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:11:52 AM
:rolleyes: Way to miss the point. I haven't made my mind up myself about gun legislation; I just don't buy into the ludicrous notion that the 2nd amendment is uniquely sacrosanct.
Kiss my ass. And yes, that's an
ad hominem directed at you. You're not exactly shy about passing them about; why should I be when dealing with you?
You're missing the point by miles. The original ten amendments to the Constitution -- the Bill of Rights -- were statements of rights that everybody already understood and accepted. The Second Amendment was put in there in response to acts the British had taken to confiscate muskets and such from colonists. All ten of the first ten amendments were written in response to concerns among the independent states that a federal government might try to do just exactly what it's been trying to do for about 200 years -- seize power from the states and from the people.
The original Bill of Rights was written as an assurance to the individual states that common sense would be observed. The first ten amendments weren't included in the original Constitution because the framers never conceived that the rights described in them could ever be doubted. It was like this: "Why would we need an amendment to the Constitution that says a man has the right to own a gun? Who is stupid enough to think otherwise?" But the states insisted, and the government complied, and now we have ten REALLY good amendments to argue about.
Now, getting back the the point, I'll ask you again to produce for me just one instance where a gun law saved lives. I'm asking because if you can't provide that simple thing, all 22,000 federal, state, and local gun laws now on the books are by definition useless.
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 11:33:16 AM
Unalienable rights.
You can't libel, you can't slander. Your rights are already qualified.
QuoteDoes that mean anything to an atheist?
Well, this is supposed to be a "fact based" discussion board; where's the scientific evidence for a deity?
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 11:38:17 AM
Kiss my ass. And yes, that's an ad hominem directed at you. You're not exactly shy about passing them about; why should I be when dealing with you?
LOL where have I predicated my arguments on ad hominems?
That isn't even an ad hominem...you can't actually figure out what that is, can you?
Quote
You're missing the point by miles. The original ten amendments to the Constitution -- the Bill of Rights -- were statements of rights that everybody already understood and accepted. The Second Amendment was put in there in response to acts the British had taken to confiscate muskets and such from colonists. All ten of the first ten amendments were written in response to concerns among the independent states that a federal government might try to do just exactly what it's been trying to do for about 200 years -- seize power from the states and from the people.
The original Bill of Rights was written as an assurance to the individual states that common sense would be observed. The first ten amendments weren't included in the original Constitution because the framers never conceived that the rights described in them could ever be doubted. It was like this: "Why would we need an amendment to the Constitution that says a man has the right to own a gun? Who is stupid enough to think otherwise?" But the states insisted, and the government complied, and now we have ten REALLY good amendments to argue about.
None of this is even remotely related to my point. The 1st amendment is regulated; the
13th amendment is regulated. In what universe do you think gun control is unconstitutional, while libel laws are not?
Notice that I say "unconstitutional", not "unsound". I am only concerned with the latter, because there's really no constitutional argument against gun control.
Banning guns would be another matter.
Quote
Now, getting back the the point, I'll ask you again to produce for me just one instance where a gun law saved lives. I'm asking because if you can't provide that simple thing, all 22,000 federal, state, and local gun laws now on the books are by definition useless.
"by definition" - do you have any idea what's going on here? I haven't made my mind up about gun control and did not make my thread to defend it beyond pointing out the flaw in one of many emotional knee jerk specious constitutional defenses.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:43:57 AM
You can't libel, you can't slander. Your rights are already qualified.
Well, this is supposed to be a "fact based" discussion board; where's the scientific evidence for a deity?
LOL where have I predicated my arguments on ad hominems?
That isn't even an ad hominem...you can't actually figure out what that is, can you?
None of this is even remotely related to my point. The 1st amendment is regulated; the 13th amendment is regulated. In what universe do you think gun control is unconstitutional, while libel laws are not?
Notice that I say "unconstitutional", not "unsound". I am only concerned with the latter, because there's really no constitutional argument against gun control. Banning guns would be another matter.
"by definition" - do you have any idea what's going on here? I haven't made my mind up about gun control and did not make my thread to defend it beyond pointing out the flaw in one of many emotional knee jerk specious constitutional defenses.
How about "Endowed by Our Creator"?
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 11:45:57 AM
How about "Endowed by Our Creator"?
Where is the scientific evidence for a creator? And please qualify "endowed".
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:43:57 AM
That isn't even an ad hominem...you can't actually figure out what that is, can you?
Um, I think it looks just exactly like that.
See ya, loser.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 11:54:08 AM
Um, I think it looks just exactly like that.
:lol: That's not what an ad hominem is. "Ad hominem" refers to a
logical fallacy, not "insults that hurt my feelings". :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:53:07 AM
Where is the scientific evidence for a creator? And please qualify "endowed".
The Declaration of Independence spells it out quite clearly.
Read it, it really is an interesting proclamation and law written by those you refer to as old balding white guys.
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 12:02:19 PM
The Declaration of Independence spells it out quite clearly.
So you don't believe in jails? After all they deprive you of liberty. The death penalty deprives you of life. So you're conceding that these rights are qualified, and "unalienable" was a rhetorical embellishment.
Naturally you also forget that these rights were by no means "self evident" since no society had truly implemented them until arguably a few decades ago in modern history. It took millions of lives, hardly sounds "self evident" to me, otherwise the Romans would have been a free society.
Quote
Read it, it really is an interesting proclamation and law written by those you refer to as old balding white guys.
You forgot about the whole "slaveowning" qualification...why do you romanticize mortal men?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 12:12:09 PM
So you don't believe in jails? After all they deprive you of liberty. The death penalty deprives you of life. So you're conceding that these rights are qualified, and "unalienable" was a rhetorical embellishment.
Naturally you also forget that these rights were by no means "self evident" since no society had truly implemented them until arguably a few decades ago in modern history. It took millions of lives, hardly sounds "self evident" to me, otherwise the Romans would have been a free society.
You forgot about the whole "slaveowning" qualification...why do you romanticize mortal men?
Boy, you really are thick, aren't you?
You asked "Where is the scientific evidence for a creator? And please qualify "endowed"."
And I gave you the Declaration as proof that our Founders based our inalienable Rights based upon Gods Law.
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 12:19:51 PM
Boy, you really are thick, aren't you?
You asked "Where is the scientific evidence for a creator? And please qualify "endowed"."
And I gave you the Declaration as proof that our Founders based our inalienable Rights based upon Gods Law.
And you think that is scientific evidence... :lol:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 12:20:48 PM
And you think that is scientific evidence... :lol:
Go away troll, your arguments are those of a child unwilling to accept the fact that our Nation was built on the belief in God.
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 12:23:23 PM
Go away troll, your arguments are those of a child unwilling to accept the fact that our Nation was built on the belief in God.
I never asked for proof that "our Nation was built on the belief in God":
Quote
Where is the scientific evidence for a creator? And please qualify "endowed".
I ask for 1. scientific evidence
that said creator exists (not that the founders believed in one) and 2. a qualification of precisely how you can be "endowed" with rights. Your argument from authority has nothing to do with the point. It also does nothing to repudiate the obvious observation that your rights are not absolute; you cannot libel, you cannot slander, if you break the law you can lose your liberty.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 12:25:11 PM
I never asked for proof that "our Nation was built on the belief in God":
I ask for 1. scientific evidence that said creator exists (not that the founders believed in one) and 2. a qualification of precisely how you can be "endowed" with rights. Your argument from authority has nothing to do with the point. It also does nothing to repudiate the obvious observation that your rights are not absolute; you cannot libel, you cannot slander, if you break the law you can lose your liberty.
Like I give a damn what you want, this is not the Religion forum, all our inalienable Rights are based on the belief they were granted by God.
Do you care to dispute that?
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 01:01:07 PM
Like I give a damn what you want, this is not the Religion forum,
You brought up a creator.
Quoteall our inalienable Rights are based on the belief they were granted by God.
That the founders were deists is a point you brought up that I neither contested or found relevant to my point. What's relevant is your claim that they are inalienable...
And they are not inalienable. You can go to jail. In Jefferson's time they had executions. Jefferson himself supported the death penalty, he did not believe that rights were
literally inalienable. It was more symbolic, and thus gun control does not violate any fundamental principle. Arguably
banning all guns unconditionally would. That's not what the mainstream liberals are advocating.
Quote
Do you care to dispute that?
Yes. You cannot commit libel. Therefore your rights are not absolute.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 01:08:34 PM
You brought up a creator.
Which explained our Rights DO NOT come from Govt!
QuoteThat the founders were deists is a point you brought up that I neither contested or found relevant to my point. What's relevant is your claim that they are inalienable...
And they are not inalienable. You can go to jail. In Jefferson's time they had executions. Jefferson himself supported the death penalty, he did not believe that rights were literally inalienable. It was more symbolic, and thus gun control does not violate any fundamental principle. Arguably banning all guns unconditionally would. That's not what the mainstream liberals are advocating.
Yes. You cannot commit libel. Therefore your rights are not absolute.
You do not have the right of slander, so no, it has nothing to do with the First.
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 02:13:13 PM
Which explained our Rights DO NOT come from Govt!
What? Just because the founders believed in a creator doesn't mean a creator existed.
And even if you believe otherwise,
for all intents and purposes we get rights from our legal system. Think about it; otherwise why are lawyers on both sides furiously debating issues to the Supreme Court, why are you trying to influence Congress's decisions, why are there NRA lobbyists in the government, do you see how you can claim that your rights are
technically derived from a creator (which they are not btw), but the practical outcome is that for 99.9999% of human history such rights simply did not manifest.
Quote
You do not have the right of slander, so no, it has nothing to do with the First.
Sure it does. Your freedom of speech ends where you cause objective harm to someone else. Even your protection from "involuntary labor" is technically superseded in times of war. So while it's unconstitutional to ban guns, how is it unconstitutional to enact gun control
if you can establish empirically that such measures promote the general welfare?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 02:25:23 PM
What? Just because the founders believed in a creator doesn't mean a creator existed.
And even if you believe otherwise, for all intents and purposes we get rights from our legal system. Think about it; otherwise why are lawyers on both sides furiously debating issues to the Supreme Court, why are you trying to influence Congress's decisions, why are there NRA lobbyists in the government, do you see how you can claim that your rights are technically derived from a creator (which they are not btw), but the practical outcome is that for 99.9999% of human history such rights simply did not manifest.
Sure we do, but not the unalienable ones, those were set before Govt was established.
Learn your history son.
QuoteSure it does. Your freedom of speech ends where you cause objective harm to someone else. Even your protection from "involuntary labor" is technically superseded in times of war. So while it's unconstitutional to ban guns, how is it unconstitutional to enact gun control if you can establish empirically that such measures promote the general welfare?
Lying to hurt someone is not covered under free speech.
Prove it is!
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 03:26:42 PM
Sure we do, but not the unalienable ones, those were set before Govt was established.
Tell that to slaves living in the Roman Empire; heck, tell that to slaves living in the United States. The foundation of our rights was a gradual, earthly progress happening at various rates in various societies. Once again,
for all intents and purposes we find our rights in law.
Quote
Learn your history son. Lying to hurt someone is not covered under free speech.
Prove it is!
That's my entire point! "free speech" does not mean "absolute right to say anything at any time". And so "right to bear arms" does not mean "absolute right to bear arms with no gun control or legislation".
Did you ever notice how morons seem to use the word "scientific" a LOT more than normal people do?
This one's like a five-year-old who just learned a new word and desperately wants to sound smart.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 03:30:37 PM
Tell that to slaves living in the Roman Empire; heck, tell that to slaves living in the United States. The foundation of our rights was a gradual, earthly progress happening at various rates in various societies. Once again, for all intents and purposes we find our rights in law.
Moving the goal post back a millennium I see?
We're talking about the US, remember?
That's my entire point! "free speech" does not mean "absolute right to say anything at any time". And so "right to bear arms" does not mean "absolute right to bear arms with no gun control or legislation".
You have the Right of free speech, you do not have the Right to trample others Rights with falsities.
Am I getting through that thick skull of yours yet?
Quote from: Solar on November 17, 2013, 06:47:53 PM
Moving the goal post back a millennium I see?
We're talking about the US, remember?
I love how you only address one example and ignore the other that perfectly fits your criteria; slavery was still an institution when the declaration was declared. The signing did not cause your creator to suddenly swoop in and free them; it took a series of political, social and technological developments quite clearly reducible to human activities and eventually a bloody civil war to emancipate them.
For all intents and purposes we fought for our rights and ensured them by law, not by a divine message. Appealing to the rhetoric of a fallible human document does not dictate reality.
Quote
You have the Right of free speech, you do not have the Right to trample others Rights with falsities.
Am I getting through that thick skull of yours yet?
Yet again you tailor your rebuttal to refute one example but not the other. The draft technically violates the 13th amendment, but your rights are suspended for the good of society in controlled circumstances. Do you understand that these rights are so obviously
not magical and unalienable?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 11:55:24 AM
:lol: That's not what an ad hominem is. "Ad hominem" refers to a logical fallacy, not "insults that hurt my feelings". :rolleyes:
Wrong.
Ad hominem in Latin means literally "to the man" or "toward the person." An
ad hominem insult or attack is aimed at a person. It has nothing to do with any sort of argument, and merely describes a statement, usually an insult. The phrase never even approaches logical fallacies or any other problems you might have.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 07:34:53 PM
Wrong. Ad hominem in Latin means literally "to the man" or "toward the person." An ad hominem insult or attack is aimed at a person. It has nothing to do with any sort of argument, and merely describes a statement, usually an insult. The phrase never even approaches logical fallacies or any other problems you might have.
LOL, that's like claiming "thank you" is really an order with the object being the person you're talking to. The
commonly used meaning of the latin phrase beyond its literal translation is
an abbreviation of "argumentum ad hominem" (note the
argumentum cut for brevity that lays waste to your interpretation).
Of course, your definition is pointless anyway since "insults" (as though I really made any worse than yours) do not invalidate the logic of an argument. That would be a style over substance distortion.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you care to actually respond to my arguments instead of the civility in which I phrase them?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 07:37:23 PM
LOL, that's like claiming "thank you" is really an order with the object being the person you're talking to. The commonly used meaning of the latin phrase beyond its literal translation is an abbreviation of "argumentum ad hominem" (note the argumentum cut for brevity that lays waste to your interpretation).
Of course, your definition is pointless anyway since "insults" (as though I really made any worse than yours) do not invalidate the logic of an argument. That would be a style over substance distortion.
Now that we've gotten that out of the way, do you care to actually respond to my arguments instead of the civility in which I phrase them?
Unless and until you can manage some semblance of civility -- something that seems to have escaped you to date -- no, I don't. Arguing with a bundle of mindless razor blades doesn't appeal to me.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 07:49:03 PM
Unless and until you can manage some semblance of civility -- something that seems to have escaped you to date -- no, I don't. Arguing with a bundle of mindless razor blades doesn't appeal to me.
Interesting. In my creationist questions I end my OP with:
Quote
I would invite any civil/rational responses. Thank you.
In your response you include:
QuoteI don't care to answer your inquiries by the numbers. Sorry if that perturbs you. (Oops! THAT was a lie!)
QuoteYour blather makes me tired.
Now please feel free to assert that I am somehow being the meanie here.
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 17, 2013, 07:34:53 PMQuoteThat's not what an ad hominem is. "Ad hominem" refers to a logical fallacy, not "insults that hurt my feelings".
Wrong. Ad hominem in Latin means literally "to the man" or "toward the person." An ad hominem insult or attack is aimed at a person. It has nothing to do with any sort of argument, and merely describes a statement, usually an insult. The phrase never even approaches logical fallacies or any other problems you might have.
That's what WE do. If someone's a blithering idiot, you call him a blithering idiot while making as much fun as you can manage of his rantings.
He does it the opposite way around. He keeps deeming every crazy ass theological argument he comes up with "scientific," and keeps calling everyone else "unscientific" because we all think everything he says is insane gibberish.
On an incredibly vague level, he knows that "science" is something that smart people do. But all he can really grasp is that
feeling; the word itself he merely presses into service to express the only concepts the subjective intellect will ever understand: self-aggrandizement; infantile insult; or preferably both at once.
I realize this is quite a stretch, but try for a second to imagine a fully-grown person with a triple-digit IQ trying to win an argument by saying: "I'm more
scientific than you!" Don't feel too bad if you can't picture that scene -- no one can.
Quote from: kopema on November 17, 2013, 09:28:39 PM
Wrong. Ad hominem in Latin means literally "to the man" or "toward the person." An ad hominem insult or attack is aimed at a person. It has nothing to do with any sort of argument, and merely describes a statement, usually an insult. The phrase never even approaches logical fallacies or any other problems you might have.
That's what WE do. If someone's a blithering idiot, you call him a blithering idiot while making as much fun as you can manage of his rantings.
He does it the opposite way around. He keeps deeming every crazy ass theological argument he comes up with "scientific," and keeps calling everyone else "unscientific" because we all think everything he says is insane gibberish.
On an incredibly vague level, he knows that "science" is something that smart people do. But all he can really grasp is that feeling; the word itself he merely presses into service to express the only concepts the subjective intellect will ever understand: self-aggrandizement; infantile insult; or preferably both at once.
I realize this is quite a stretch, but try for a second to imagine a fully-grown person with a triple-digit IQ trying to win an argument by saying: "I'm more scientific than you!" Don't feel too bad if you can't picture that scene -- no one can.
Notice how nothing that you say here actually addresses any argument or contention? :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 09:38:24 PM
Notice how nothing that you say here actually addresses any argument or contention?
You're only now starting to figure that out? Did you also happen to notice that I'm not addressing your unicorn?
To you the first comes as a surprise, and the second seems a complete coincidence. To some people, that's how everything in the whole world looks.
kopema: since it's clear from your replies that you don't consider actually addressing someone's contentions rather than attacking his posting style or rhetoric to be sufficiently enjoyable, and since you have indicated that you are better at both math and science than I am, let me test you. I'll give you seven extremely basic questions. See if you can answer them. Maybe you can even use the internet to help you.
You see, it's easy to make nonfalsifiable statements ("your argument is stupid so I don't feel a need to substantiate this"), but we judge a claim by its predictive ability. Since you think you have such transcendent critical thinking skills you do not even need to debate those of opposing viewpoints, surely when it comes to actual, objective measurements you won't suspiciously come up lacking. I mean, you might have to research a few concepts, but beyond that nothing here extends beyond a high school education:
1. How much power is needed to keep an Earth sized, spherical planet in a circular orbit one astronomical unit away from our sun?
2. Find the mass of a paraboloid z = 4x^2 + 6y^2 (in meters) with a density of (3x^2 + 2y) kg/m^3.
3. How does the translational kinetic energy of a cylinder rolling down an inclined plane upon reaching the bottom compare to that of an equivalent cylinder sliding?
4. Demonstrate that rdrd(theta) = dydx.
5. You have two sided cards laid out to you like this: A 5 C 4 and 3. On one side is a letter and another a number. How many cards would you have to flip over to prove the statement: "if a card has a side A, the other side will be a 5".
6. On the moon, how does the work needed to lift a 5 kg object vertically by 4 meters compare to the work needed to lift the same object diagonally a distance of 5 meters on a 53.13 degree incline?
7. If you are standing on one end of a boat, explain what will happen if you started walking to the other side.
Of course, you could easily humiliate me by solving all of these problems, which you should have learned in high school...but something tells me you won't. :lol:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 09:57:15 PM
kopema: since it's clear from your replies that you don't consider actually addressing someone's contentions rather than attacking his posting style or rhetoric to be sufficiently enjoyable, and since you have indicated that you are better at both math and science than I am, let me test you. I'll give you seven extremely basic questions. See if you can answer them. Maybe you can even use the internet to help you.
You see, it's easy to make nonfalsifiable statements ("your argument is stupid so I don't feel a need to substantiate this"), but we judge a claim by its predictive ability. Since you think you have such transcendent critical thinking skills you do not even need to debate those of opposing viewpoints, surely when it comes to actual, objective measurements you won't suspiciously come up lacking. I mean, you might have to research a few concepts, but beyond that nothing here extends beyond a high school education:
1. How much power is needed to keep an Earth sized, spherical planet in a circular orbit one astronomical unit away from our sun?
2. Find the mass of a paraboloid z = 4x^2 + 6y^2 (in meters) with a density of (3x^2 + 2y) kg/m^3.
3. How does the translational kinetic energy of a cylinder rolling down an inclined plane upon reaching the bottom compare to that of an equivalent cylinder sliding?
4. Demonstrate that rdrd(theta) = dydx.
5. You have two sided cards laid out to you like this: A 5 C 4 and 3. On one side is a letter and another a number. How many cards would you have to flip over to prove the statement: "if a card has a side A, the other side will be a 5".
6. On the moon, how does the work needed to lift a 5 kg object vertically by 4 meters compare to the work needed to lift the same object diagonally a distance of 5 meters on a 53.13 degree incline?
7. If you are standing on one end of a boat, explain what will happen if you started walking to the other side.
Of course, you could easily humiliate me by solving all of these problems, which you should have learned in high school...but something tells me you won't. :lol:
OK he's starting to Spam now, but this was indicative before it became repetitive (and creepily stalkish.)
This has always been my definition of a liberaltarian: a liberal who's cursed with a remedial comprehension of arithmetic.
You'd think that even the tiniest little bit of knowledge should always be a good thing; but to the pathological narcissist it's not. It gets him kicked out of the kiddie table, but doesn't let him play with the grownups.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 09:57:15 PM
kopema: since it's clear from your replies that you don't consider actually addressing someone's contentions rather than attacking his posting style or rhetoric to be sufficiently enjoyable, and since you have indicated that you are better at both math and science than I am, let me test you. I'll give you seven extremely basic questions. See if you can answer them. Maybe you can even use the internet to help you.
You see, it's easy to make nonfalsifiable statements ("your argument is stupid so I don't feel a need to substantiate this"), but we judge a claim by its predictive ability. Since you think you have such transcendent critical thinking skills you do not even need to debate those of opposing viewpoints, surely when it comes to actual, objective measurements you won't suspiciously come up lacking. I mean, you might have to research a few concepts, but beyond that nothing here extends beyond a high school education:
1. How much power is needed to keep an Earth sized, spherical planet in a circular orbit one astronomical unit away from our sun?
2. Find the mass of a paraboloid z = 4x^2 + 6y^2 (in meters) with a density of (3x^2 + 2y) kg/m^3.
3. How does the translational kinetic energy of a cylinder rolling down an inclined plane upon reaching the bottom compare to that of an equivalent cylinder sliding?
4. Demonstrate that rdrd(theta) = dydx.
5. You have two sided cards laid out to you like this: A 5 C 4 and 3. On one side is a letter and another a number. How many cards would you have to flip over to prove the statement: "if a card has a side A, the other side will be a 5".
6. On the moon, how does the work needed to lift a 5 kg object vertically by 4 meters compare to the work needed to lift the same object diagonally a distance of 5 meters on a 53.13 degree incline?
7. If you are standing on one end of a boat, explain what will happen if you started walking to the other side.
Of course, you could easily humiliate me by solving all of these problems, which you should have learned in high school...but something tells me you won't. :lol:
What in the Hell has Gaussian integration to do with the 2nd?
Your attempt to show high a school pop quiz in relation to the topic screams you know you're losing the debate, you ran from me and now you build straw men out of your own feces, when in truth, all you've managed to prove is you have yet to grow up.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, that you're all of 25, and every bit a kid that thinks he's somehow smarter than everyone else.
I have news for you, your mommy lied and your socialist teachers were idiots.
Do you even have a job in the real world yet?
Quote from: Solar on November 18, 2013, 07:27:53 AM
What in the Hell has Gaussian integration to do with the 2nd?
Your attempt to show high a school pop quiz in relation to the topic screams you know you're losing the debate, you ran from me and now you build straw men out of your own feces, when in truth, all you've managed to prove is you have yet to grow up.
I'm going to take a wild guess here, that you're all of 25, and every bit a kid that thinks he's somehow smarter than everyone else.
I have news for you, your mommy lied and your socialist teachers were idiots.
Do you even have a job in the real world yet?
There's a 2 in it?
Quote from: TboneAgain on November 18, 2013, 07:35:00 AM
There's a 2 in it?
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.freesmileys.org%2Femoticons%2Femoticon-cartoon-013.gif&hash=cb73687aec7361f21a26987158a23933733a84f2)
Quote from: Solar on November 18, 2013, 07:27:53 AM
Your attempt to show high a school pop quiz in relation to the topic screams you know you're losing the debate, you ran from me and now you build straw men out of your own feces, when in truth, all you've managed to prove is you have yet to grow up.
"Your 'arguments' consist of absolutely nothing but insensate blather."
"Hah! I'll show you: [cuts and pastes random excerpt from eighth grade exam.]"
Go ahead and laugh, but that's the closest he's come so far to actually making a relevant comment.
Quote from: kopema on November 18, 2013, 08:04:14 AM
"Your 'arguments' consist of absolutely nothing but insensate blather."
"Hah! I'll show you: [cuts and pastes random excerpt from eighth grade exam.]"
Go ahead and laugh, but that's the closest he's come so far to actually making a relevant comment.
True, his failure comes from not understanding his opponents position, as well as the fact he knows nothing of our goals.
He has been taught that Capitalism is evil and any amount of profit comes from pure greed, rather than the fact that a truly free man has the immunity to pursue true happiness when not hamstrung by govt oppression, which explains his attempt at dissection over the Bill of Rights in particular the 2nd.
These damn kids were taught to accept blindly the equivocation of the message as fact being force fed their empty heads.
He is the epitome of LIV!
Quote from: Solar on November 18, 2013, 08:49:34 AM
True, his failure comes from not understanding his opponents position, as well as the fact he knows nothing of our goals. He has been taught that Capitalism is evil and any amount of profit comes from pure greed, rather than the fact that a truly free man has the immunity to pursue true happiness when not hamstrung by govt oppression, which explains his attempt at dissection over the Bill of Rights in particular the 2nd.
Ignorance and susceptibility to misinformation are not liberals' failings -- those are two of their precious few redeeming qualities.
Collectivism is not a peccadillo; it is a
religion. This guy isn't just ignorant and misinformed; he is
zealous. In his mind, he isn't "failing" at anything; the more we poke fun at him, the more confirmed he becomes in his own self-righteous martyrdom.
Quote from: kopema on November 18, 2013, 09:08:17 AM
Ignorance and susceptibility to misinformation are not liberals' failings -- those are two of their precious few redeeming qualities.
Collectivism is not a peccadillo; it is a religion. This guy isn't just ignorant and misinformed; he is zealous. In his mind, he isn't "failing" at anything; the more we poke fun at him, the more confirmed he becomes in his own self-righteous martyrdom.
Which is why I challenged him on the Fabian doctrine.
I know he will suddenly stop, read all he can on the topic, only to look for excuses.
But the undeniable fact that the two are inseparable will stick like a phallus in his throat, the one time he will reject such a moment in his progressive life.
Quote from: Solar on November 18, 2013, 09:16:45 AM
Which is why I challenged him on the Fabian doctrine. I know he will suddenly stop, read all he can on the topic, only to look for excuses.
With all due respect, if it's
your theory, then it is
your job to explain the connection.
As I said, I don't know of a direct connection between that and Obama. Everything about his background - from three generations ago up through his twenty-year involvement with the Nation Of Islam and Trinity Church - points to ultra-radical anti-colonialism and Black Liberation Theology. (Frankly, just the fact that it has
British ties would appear to go against his grain.) No matter who he's affiliated with at the moment, he's said or done nothing to indicate he's particularly dedicated to Fabianism, any more than he is to Fascism, Socialism, Environmentalism or Communism -- every indication is that all of those things are simply interchangeable tools and alliances of convenience to him.
As I said before, I have MET these people. Go to any Ivy-League grad school in America and you'll see hundreds of Clintons, Reids and Pelosis. And alongside them you'll also see a few dozen Ayers, Van Jones and Obamas. They are all stamped out of plastic, but from two completely different molds. They share some common short-term tactics, but whether the elitist twats you call "Fabians" and I call "latte liberals" understand it or not, they are most definitely NOT cut from the same cloth as the handful of committed radicals they glom onto like so many preppy kids idolizing rap stars who'd love nothing more than to slit all their throats.
On a very tangentially related note, have you ever read Obama's auto-hagiographies? I really got the same "vibe" off of them that I got from Marx, Nietzsche and Mein Kampf. And I don't just mean the class warfare, racism and bizarre theology either. Even the syntax is...
weird. After only a few words, I thought: "How could anyone not know this was written by a crazy person?" It was hard to chalk it all up to terrible translations for such widely-read works. And it's even harder with Obama; English is practically one of his native languages, and he couldn't have had any shortage of editors and proofreaders. What's up with that?
Quote from: kopema on November 18, 2013, 10:58:55 AM
With all due respect, if it's your theory, then it is your job to explain the connection.
As I said, I don't know of a direct connection between that and Obama. Everything about his background - from three generations ago up through his twenty-year involvement with the Nation Of Islam and Trinity Church - points to ultra-radical anti-colonialism and Black Liberation Theology. (Frankly, just the fact that it has British ties would appear to go against his grain.) No matter who he's affiliated with at the moment, he's said or done nothing to indicate he's particularly dedicated to Fabianism, any more than he is to Fascism, Socialism, Environmentalism or Communism -- every indication is that all of those things are simply interchangeable tools and alliances of convenience to him.
As I said before, I have MET these people. Go to any Ivy-League grad school in America and you'll see hundreds of Clintons, Reids and Pelosis. And alongside them you'll also see a few dozen Ayers, Van Jones and Obamas. They are all stamped out of plastic, but from two completely different molds. They share some common short-term tactics, but whether the elitist twats you call "Fabians" and I call "latte liberals" understand it or not, they are most definitely NOT cut from the same cloth as the handful of committed radicals they glom onto like so many preppy kids idolizing rap stars who'd love nothing more than to slit all their throats.
On a very tangentially related note, have you ever read Obama's auto-hagiographies? I really got the same "vibe" off of them that I got from Marx, Nietzsche and Mein Kampf. And I don't just mean the class warfare, racism and bizarre theology either. Even the syntax is... weird. After only a few words, I thought: "How could anyone not know this was written by a crazy person?" It was hard to chalk it all up to terrible translations for such widely-read works. And it's even harder with Obama; English is practically one of his native languages, and he couldn't have had any shortage of editors and proofreaders. What's up with that?
I will make the clear connection, but I won't tip my hand, only to have him scurry away again, like he has in the past by not acknowledging it.
But feel free to do a bit of research on your own, you find there is a solid connection.
Solar, please read your PM.
kopema, I'm assuming your refusal to answer my questions has everything to do with not wanting to answer them and nothing to do with any inability.
Yeah sure it's off topic; but what else can I do when your response to a series of contentions and evidence is to block quote and respond with something akin to "I know I'm right and will not bother to justify my position"? Notice how such claims, no matter how true, are generic and can be copy-pasted to refute any position imaginable? Perhaps it's because you offer no actual argument or elaboration? "I work in mysterious ways" bullshit. :rolleyes:
I would like to comment on the subject of the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control. I composed a paper on this very subject in college and for many this issue is based on nothing more than one side or the others views or better yet manipulation of the data to help get their message across and their point of view across to people they can influence one way or the other. The truth of this issue lies in the fact that those who support gun control do not wish to honor the Constitutional right of Americans to own and Bear arms when they legislate gun control thus most gun control laws do absolutely nothing to prevent crime, or criminals getting or using guns. This fact has been verified by a Former Director of the ATFBE who served in this position for over thirty-five years. This gentleman even authored a book on the subject. The gentleman I am talking about is named William Vizzard Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control is the name of the book. I suggest everyone read it and then you will understand Gun Control is really about control of the law abiding citizen and every country in which this happens usually becomes a dictatorship. Also I suggest you look at all the countries that signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty and see how many are really dictatorships. The 2nd Amendment ensures the citizens of the United States maintains the freedoms guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Remember who ever controls the Guns controls you.
Quote from: Harvey on February 07, 2014, 04:54:24 PM
I would like to comment on the subject of the 2nd Amendment and Gun Control. I composed a paper on this very subject in college and for many this issue is based on nothing more than one side or the others views or better yet manipulation of the data to help get their message across and their point of view across to people they can influence one way or the other. The truth of this issue lies in the fact that those who support gun control do not wish to honor the Constitutional right of Americans to own and Bear arms when they legislate gun control thus most gun control laws do absolutely nothing to prevent crime, or criminals getting or using guns. This fact has been verified by a Former Director of the ATFBE who served in this position for over thirty-five years. This gentleman even authored a book on the subject. The gentleman I am talking about is named William Vizzard Shots in the Dark: The Policy, Politics, and Symbolism of Gun Control is the name of the book. I suggest everyone read it and then you will understand Gun Control is really about control of the law abiding citizen and every country in which this happens usually becomes a dictatorship. Also I suggest you look at all the countries that signed the United Nations Small Arms Treaty and see how many are really dictatorships. The 2nd Amendment ensures the citizens of the United States maintains the freedoms guaranteed under the United States Constitution. Remember who ever controls the Guns controls you.
Well said!
The Bill of rights is about limiting the power of government. It's not about limiting the rights of citizens. Just sayin. :wink:
Quote from: Dan on February 16, 2014, 06:38:08 AM
The Bill of rights is about limiting the power of government. It's not about limiting the rights of citizens. Just sayin. :wink:
That is exactly why democrats have a problem with the Constitution.
This is a repost from McFix on TPO.
Here is the United Nations writing up the gun confiscation program
for Barry. The UN bug is resistance to Agenda 21.
As far as I know, this is not a Hoax.
http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/03/27/obamas-plan-to-disarm-america/ (http://www.westernfreepress.com/2014/03/27/obamas-plan-to-disarm-america/)
Quote from: Dan on February 16, 2014, 06:38:08 AM
The Bill of rights is about limiting the power of government. It's not about limiting the rights of citizens. Just sayin. :wink:
Say just a little more, please! The ENTIRE Constitution is all about defining and limiting the powers of the newly-formed (at the time) national government. The first ten amendments contain specific principles that were felt by the Constitution's authors to be so fundamental to the existence of the Union that they didn't even need to be said. That's why they weren't embodied in the Constitution as first circulated for approval by the states. It was the states that insisted on what later became known as the Bill of Rights.
Thank God they did.
Quote from: supsalemgr on February 16, 2014, 08:26:30 AM
That is exactly why democrats have a problem with the Constitution.
A lot of Republicans don't grasp that either. It's just on different issues.
I'm getting tired of this "gun control" garbage. Do libtards not no that criminals don't follow the law? They'll just buy them illegally. All this statist, anti-american laws would do is persecute responsible gun owners.
Quote from: No Chance Without Paul on July 15, 2014, 08:09:08 PM
I'm getting tired of this "gun control" garbage. Do libtards not no that criminals don't follow the law? They'll just buy them illegally.
By that logic, we should open up our borders, because illegal immigrants demonstrably aren't going to follow the law; they'll just cross the border illegally. :rolleyes:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 26, 2014, 08:37:44 PMBy that logic, we should open up our borders, because illegal immigrants demonstrably aren't going to follow the law; they'll just cross the border illegally. :rolleyes:
For all practical purposes, they're wide open now.
Quote from: CG6468 on July 27, 2014, 07:22:07 AM
For all practical purposes, they're wide open now.
Not only wide open, but the Marxists is playing the part of a valet servant.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 26, 2014, 08:37:44 PM
By that logic, we should open up our borders, because illegal immigrants demonstrably aren't going to follow the law; they'll just cross the border illegally. :rolleyes:
False argument. Apples and oranges. Our immigration laws and border enforcement efforts (such as they are) are specifically designed to control the behavior of illegals. They do not apply to legal citizens, and seldom affect them in any way. Gun control laws, on the other hand, burden honest, law-abiding citizens much more than they do the criminals they're supposedly designed to impede.
I still say we need a 100 yard wide no man's zone, with orders to the Border Agents and the Military forces to shoot to kill any trespassers.
Quote from: CG6468 on July 27, 2014, 07:22:07 AM
For all practical purposes, they're wide open now.
And so it follows from my ad absurdum that we shouldn't bother doing anything about it, for the same reason you don't seem to think we should do anything about guns.
Quote from: TboneAgain on July 27, 2014, 11:02:58 AM
Gun control laws, on the other hand, burden honest, law-abiding citizens much more than they do the criminals they're supposedly designed to impede.
I see no reason why having to go through basic background checks to purchase a deadly weapon is a unreasonable burden. You have to go through extensive testing (over 60 hours of recording activity here in Maryland) to be able to operate a motor vehicle. Nor do I see the banning of heavy assault rifles for all those who don't possess some compelling reason to have them as any more unreasonable than requiring special permission to drive certain types of automobiles on public streets. You substitute "alcohol", "driving", "smoking", "obtaining a green card" or "opening a restaurant" for "guns" in any argument and suddenly the nuts go away.
Of course, I'm assuming that you're talking about serious gun control propositions, and that you aren't simply strawmanning positions that have never gained a single vote in the legislature and have no serious chance of ever passing. You surely know better than to do that.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 01:54:05 PM
I see no reason why having to go through basic background checks to purchase a deadly weapon is a unreasonable burden.
As opposed to a non-deadly weapon?
It is a burden, because the government shouldn't be a barrier between a person and his or her firearms. Seems simple to me.
Quote
You have to go through extensive testing (over 60 hours of recording activity here in Maryland) to be able to operate a motor vehicle.
Well, they do kill a lot more people. Also, I can't find anything in the Second Amendment regarding drivers license. Were you just being academic again?
Quote
Nor do I see the banning of heavy assault rifles for all those who don't possess some compelling reason to have them as any more unreasonable than requiring special permission to drive certain types of automobiles on public streets.
Why should it matter if they have them or not? The Second Amendment is pretty clear about this right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Is it too complicated for you?
Quote
You substitute "alcohol", "driving", "smoking", "obtaining a green card" or "opening a restaurant" for "guns" in any argument and suddenly the nuts go away.
Of course, I'm assuming that you're talking about serious gun control propositions, and that you aren't simply strawmanning positions that have never gained a single vote in the legislature and have no serious chance of ever passing. You surely know better than to do that.
Huh?
Registered gun owners are NOT the ones causing all the violence.
Quote from: CG6468 on July 28, 2014, 04:40:43 PM
Registered gun owners are NOT the ones causing all the violence.
IF your a lib you are. :lol: Let me set you straight young man,
law abiding gun owners are not causing all the violence.
Quote from: taxed on July 28, 2014, 03:05:42 PM
It is a burden, because the government shouldn't be a barrier between a person and his or her firearms. Seems simple to me.
By that logic, voter ID laws are a bad thing because a government shouldn't be a barrier between a person and his or her right to vote. Ditto with airplane security checks and proofs of residency. Why do you wish to background check people who want to put money into a bank? You don't want to get between a person and his or her money, do you? You aren't a socialist, are you? :rolleyes:
"Reasonable security precautions" =/= "barrier".
Quote
Well, they do kill a lot more people.
Oh, so it's a numbers game now? If motor vehicles only killed a few hundred people a year, suddenly you'd be marching in the streets to remove the driver's license requirement?
You're petty fogging the issue; we have background checks for any variety of actions and purchases, yet nobody complains that the right to make those actions or purchases is being infringed upon, so long as the checks are reasonable and rational (and a background check for owning a firearm is pretty common sense to me).
Quote
Also, I can't find anything in the Second Amendment regarding drivers license. Were you just being academic again?
Nice stalling tactic - you do realize that isn't the only analogy I could use, right? The 1st amendment guarantees free speech, yet you have to obtain a license to protest in certain situations where you might cause a public disturbance. Why are you not up in arms about this big government regulation? How about the need for people to register to vote and go through all sorts of background checks; does this not infringe on the 15th and 19th amendments?
Quote
Why should it matter if they have them or not? The Second Amendment is pretty clear about this right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon. Is it too complicated for you?
No other constitutional right is absolute; even the
13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary. Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives? Do you also protest libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?
Quote
Huh?
Simpler words might help you: there are regulations for everything. If these regulations are unreasonable, then they shouldn't be in place. But they are not automatically wrong on principle. Even the most fundamental liberties (freedom of speech, freedom from slavery) are not sacrosanct; why the fuck is the right to bear arms special?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Why do [some] conservatives continue to insist that the 2nd amendment forbids any gun control legislation, even those as simplistic and precedented as background checks?
To be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute. Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander. Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law. Not even the 13 amendment is absolute. In all these instances, exceptions are made when your freedoms are outweighed by those of others, or the general welfare of society.
So yes, you have the right to own a gun. This does not mean that the government enact absolutely no regulations to qualify such a right; you know, such as how we already do not let minors own firearms. NRA logic would not be taken seriously were it by a guy who falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who made death threats. No other right is unqualified, so exactly why do you think bearing arms should be exceptional? Are you that enamored with hunting? Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?
As a result, what both sides of the debate should be doing is answering the question: will a gun law cause more harm than good? Look at the empirical data and studies. If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment. If a regulation will not save lives, then it should not be enacted. Why do certain activists believe that the 2nd amendment is actually more sacrosanct than the 1st, or 13th?
Where to start....
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander.
That is because libel and slander violate state tort laws. It is a civil case and they can't make you register your mouth, take it away, confiscate your tongue until the background check comes back or even control what you say in the future. All they can do is make you pay for damages you caused. DAMAGES being the key - your rights stop where you cause damage to another or their rights.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law.
No it doesn't. Laws must abide with the constitution (or they are unconstitutional). Your freedom of religion stops where you cause damage to another or their rights.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
Do you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?
Yes, if they are dedicated enough. I spent years of my life fighting men in Afghanistan and Iraq armed mostly with rifles and improvised explosives. The Vietnam vets fought guys with rifles, wearing sandals that subsisted on a hand full of rice a day that used sharpened bamboo as a weapons.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment
Because that regulation would violate the constitution. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
That's clear as a bell. Make no mistake, the 1st and 2nd amendments are where I personally draw a line (read that as, you will have to take my guns by force and shut me up physically - and I don't care what those 9 bath robe wearing ambulance chasers think)
If you want to change the constitution make an amendment and change it (an effort I will resist) - otherwise come and get it.
Oh, damn. I didn't know my little pet replied before he ran away. I miss you boy! Please come back!
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on July 28, 2014, 08:02:47 PM
By that logic, voter ID laws are a bad thing because a government shouldn't be a barrier between a person and his or her right to vote.
You have to be a US citizen to vote. As usual, you're ass-backwards.
Quote
Ditto with airplane security checks and proofs of residency.
No, it isn't the same thing. The Second Amendment is pretty clear. You are like a straw man factory.
Quote
Why do you wish to background check people who want to put money into a bank?
I don't.
Quote
You don't want to get between a person and his or her money, do you? You aren't a socialist, are you? :rolleyes:
No. Only stupid people are socialists.
Quote
"Reasonable security precautions" =/= "barrier".
Wrong, sweetheart.
Quote
Oh, so it's a numbers game now?
No.
Quote
If motor vehicles only killed a few hundred people a year, suddenly you'd be marching in the streets to remove the driver's license requirement?
No.
Quote
You're petty fogging the issue;
I'm the one fogging the issue?
Quote
we have background checks for any variety of actions and purchases, yet nobody complains that the right to make those actions or purchases is being infringed upon, so long as the checks are reasonable and rational (and a background check for owning a firearm is pretty common sense to me).
All of your idiotic straw man examples are not in the Bill of Rights. Fail again.
Quote
Nice stalling tactic - you do realize that isn't the only analogy I could use, right? The 1st amendment guarantees free speech, yet you have to obtain a license to protest in certain situations where you might cause a public disturbance.
I'm starting to wonder if you've actually read the Bill of Rights (on your own -- not parroted to you by an academic).
Quote
Why are you not up in arms about this big government regulation?
Um, I am. I have been for years, all the time you've been hiding in school.
Quote
How about the need for people to register to vote and go through all sorts of background checks; does this not infringe on the 15th and 19th amendments?
No, dummy. I want to purify the voting process.
Quote
No other constitutional right is absolute; even the 13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary. Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives? Do you also protest libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?
Yes, they are absolute.
Quote
Simpler words might help you: there are regulations for everything. If these regulations are unreasonable, then they shouldn't be in place. But they are not automatically wrong on principle. Even the most fundamental liberties (freedom of speech, freedom from slavery) are not sacrosanct; why the fuck is the right to bear arms special?
Because it is in the Bill of Rights, which are absolute, and they are to protect us from tyranny of the Federal Government. The entity we're protected from shouldn't be the entity giving us permission to purchase arms. Your academically idiotic examples of driving aren't protecting us from the Federal Government and aren't in the Bill of Rights. I'm sorry, your professor is wrong.
Quote from: taxed on August 05, 2014, 06:24:18 PM
Because it is in the Bill of Rights, which are absolute, and they are to protect us from tyranny of the Federal Government. The entity we're protected from shouldn't be the entity giving us permission to purchase arms. Your academically idiotic examples of driving aren't protecting us from the Federal Government and aren't in the Bill of Rights. I'm sorry, your professor is wrong.
:lol:
Stop picking on the guys professor; he paid a lot of money and had to kiss a lot of a$$ for that
phd.
(https://conservativepoliticalforum.com/proxy.php?request=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.husky-owners.com%2Fforum%2Fuploads%2Fmonthly_03_2014%2Fpost-6001-0-36788800-1395522092.gif&hash=32f77edb1642cc5e398683b1972ffab4e4e7906b)
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 06:43:56 PM
:lol:
Stop picking on the guys professor; he paid a lot of money and had to kiss a lot of a$$ for that
phd.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 05, 2014, 06:43:56 PM
:lol:
Stop picking on the guys professor; he paid a lot of money and had to kiss a lot of a$$ for that
phd.
:lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol: :lol:
Quote from: Novanglus on August 04, 2014, 09:53:20 PM
That is because libel and slander violate state tort laws. It is a civil case and they can't make you register your mouth, take it away, confiscate your tongue until the background check comes back or even control what you say in the future. All they can do is make you pay for damages you caused. DAMAGES being the key - your rights stop where you cause damage to another or their rights.
Emphasis mine - thank you, for agreeing with me that the public interest can override your personal freedoms. Now, explain to me why you didn't just validate my argument. I don't think you exactly understand it. It does not say "guns should be outlawed", although you probably read it that way.
Quote
No it doesn't. Laws must abide with the constitution (or they are unconstitutional).
Yes, laws must abide with the constitution - this is a true statement that does absolutely nothing to back up your claim. A constitutional law does not have to be suspended for a religious practice. "Freedom of religion" does not mean "religion gets a special exception from the law".
Quote
Yes, if they are dedicated enough. I spent years of my life fighting men in Afghanistan and Iraq armed mostly with rifles and improvised explosives. The Vietnam vets fought guys with rifles, wearing sandals that subsisted on a hand full of rice a day that used sharpened bamboo as a weapons.
Ignoring the fact that both of the enemies you mentioned benefited from foreign military supplies, you did not address the point at all.
Quote
Because that regulation would violate the constitution. "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED."
You conceded that the 1st amendment could be violated to protect people. Ergo, the question becomes "do gun control laws protect people?", and if the answer is "yes" to any meaningful margin, then those gun control laws can be enacted on both precedence and utilitarian interest. This has nothing to do with ideology, and I never even suggested any particular gun control laws - it's just an exercise in basic logic.
Quote
That's clear as a bell. Make no mistake, the 1st and 2nd amendments are where I personally draw a line (read that as, you will have to take my guns by force and shut me up physically - and I don't care what those 9 bath robe wearing ambulance chasers think)
No, they aren't, since you admitted that libel and slander laws are good things, and you presumably think that it's good that we don't let people threaten to kill one another. If the 1st amendment has an asterisk to allow for the public good, then so can the 2nd, in which case the issue switches from an ideological one to an empirical one, and
that's the entire point of my argument.
Quote from: taxed on August 05, 2014, 06:24:18 PM
You have to be a US citizen to vote.
Newsflash: plenty of US citizens don't have voter IDs. This, as usual, is not a question of ideology as much as it is in elementary logic: "you have to be a US citizen to vote" would only be a suitable counter to "requirements to be a US citizen to vote are wrong", not to "voter ID requirements are wrong". Otherwise, you would concede that "you need to undergo a background check to get a gun" is valid so long as "you shouldn't own a gun if you're a murderous criminal" is.
Quote
I don't.
:rolleyes: Oh, so I shouldn't have to show ID to create a bank account?
QuoteWrong, sweetheart.
Oooohhh, another emphatic, completely unsubstantiated statement of yours!
Quote
No.
Wow, I'm amazed by your articulation and debating skills, I really am.
Quote
All of your idiotic straw man examples are not in the Bill of Rights.
Freedom of speech is protected under the 1st amendment, yet it can be violated for the public interest. Ditto with every other amendment, even the
13th, for fuck's sake. Explain why the 2nd should have a special exemption from this hat-tip to pragmatism.
QuoteYes, they are absolute.
Reading, taxed. It's not that hard. Let me repeat to you the text you just quoted and, you know, are supposed to actually respond to:
"No other constitutional right is absolute;
even the 13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary. Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives? Do you also protest
libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?"
You see? I made a contention, and then supported it with two specific examples. Funny that you never bothered to address them.
Quote
Because it is in the Bill of Rights, which are absolute
Oh, so I could threaten to kill my neighbor, and then tell the judge that I was just exercising my 1st amendment right to free speech? :rolleyes:
Newsflash: none of the amendments are absolute, and it's pretty pathetic that you continue to insist that they are after several specific examples to the contrary were provided to you.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 10:32:00 PM
Emphasis mine - thank you, for agreeing with me that the public interest can override your personal freedoms. Now, explain to me why you didn't just validate my argument. I don't think you exactly understand it. It does not say "guns should be outlawed", although you probably read it that way.
Yes, laws must abide with the constitution - this is a true statement that does absolutely nothing to back up your claim. A constitutional law does not have to be suspended for a religious practice. "Freedom of religion" does not mean "religion gets a special exception from the law".
Ignoring the fact that both of the enemies you mentioned benefited from foreign military supplies, you did not address the point at all.
You conceded that the 1st amendment could be violated to protect people. Ergo, the question becomes "do gun control laws protect people?", and if the answer is "yes" to any meaningful margin, then those gun control laws can be enacted on both precedence and utilitarian interest. This has nothing to do with ideology, and I never even suggested any particular gun control laws - it's just an exercise in basic logic.
No, they aren't, since you admitted that libel and slander laws are good things, and you presumably think that it's good that we don't let people threaten to kill one another. If the 1st amendment has an asterisk to allow for the public good, then so can the 2nd, in which case the issue switches from an ideological one to an empirical one, and that's the entire point of my argument.
You misinterpreted what I said worse than you misinterpret the constitution (or your just playing dumb).
It is not ok to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment for the "public good"; and I never suggested such a thing. The problem with it being that your idea of "public good" is different then mine. One person would want to make burning the US flag illegal and another would want it to be illegal to talk bad about their football team, and both would say it is "public good".
The only way to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment is the method prescribed in the constitution - another amendment.
You can do and say what you want, and I can do and say what I want - so long as we do not violate someone else's rights.
But liberals say...
"if you purchase a gun without a background check and registration, then you are violating my right to be safe"
No, if I shoot you or threaten to shoot you I violate your rights. To violate someone's rights is a direct action not "possible" yet incredibly improbable 2nd and 3rd order effects.
Otherwise we could make silly arguments like this....
"If you fart, the methane gas will disperse in the atmosphere and I might breath it in; so you are violating my right to breath - so you should have to register your a$$" :ttoung:
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 10:32:00 PM
Ignoring the fact that both of the enemies you mentioned benefited from foreign military supplies, you did not address the point at all.
I almost forgot this one, sorry.
Yes, guys with guns can effectively fight a modern military. That's not theory, I've seen it. It does not even take that many people to form an effective resistance. No, they don't need helicopters or even heavy machine guns.
Yes Iraqi insurgents and Taliban A-holes got the occasional RPG or mortar from foreign sources (and so would any U.S. civilian resistance if the time comes, trust me - the enemy of my enemy is my friend). But for the most part they fought with rifles and IEDs. The vast majority of IEDs we encounter are made from junk - 9V batteries, Christmas lights, wire from a lamp cord, soda cans (for metal contacts), scrap wood, an old spring from a vehicle to give the pressure plate resistance, the remote control from a toy car or a garage door opener can be a remote detonator ....ect...
Quote from: Novanglus on August 10, 2014, 11:26:51 PM
It is not ok to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment for the "public good"; and I never suggested such a thing. The problem with it being that your idea of "public good" is different then mine. One person would want to make burning the US flag illegal and another would want it to be illegal to talk bad about their football team, and both would say it is "public good".
As burning the US flag and trashing a football team are victimless crimes, your analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with my own, ie, libel and slander laws, the war draft, and laws against harassment and threats, all of which technically violate your constitutional rights.
Quote
The only way to put an "asterisk" next to a constitutional amendment is the method prescribed in the constitution - another amendment.
Or the Courts' concessions to pragmatism. Nowhere in the amendments is there room for libel or slander laws, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights are the restrictions extended to the state governments. Sane minds realized that these were all necessary, and you don't have a problem with any of them.
Quote
You can do and say what you want, and I can do and say what I want - so long as we do not violate someone else's rights.
But liberals say...
"if you purchase a gun without a background check and registration, then you are violating my right to be safe"
No, if I shoot you or threaten to shoot you I violate your rights. To violate someone's rights is a direct action not "possible" yet incredibly improbable 2nd and 3rd order effects.
By this logic, it should be OK for me to drive intoxicated without a license, so long as I don't actually run you over. :rolleyes:
Quote
Otherwise we could make silly arguments like this....
"If you fart, the methane gas will disperse in the atmosphere and I might breath it in; so you are violating my right to breath - so you should have to register your a$$" :ttoung:
I wasn't aware that inhaling diluted methane was somehow analogous to firearm possession in any sort of realistic danger assessment.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 10, 2014, 10:42:50 PM
Newsflash: plenty of US citizens don't have voter IDs.
One should be able to prove they are an American citizen. Everyone has an ID.
Quote
This, as usual, is not a question of ideology as much as it is in elementary logic:
You continue to reference logic, something you have no knowledge or experience with. I, and many of us here, have used logic in the real world. You haven't. It's adorable, but you need to know your place, intellectually. The real world isn't a college class where you fail all the way up to tenure.
Quote
"you have to be a US citizen to vote" would only be a suitable counter to "requirements to be a US citizen to vote are wrong", not to "voter ID requirements are wrong". Otherwise, you would concede that "you need to undergo a background check to get a gun" is valid so long as "you shouldn't own a gun if you're a murderous criminal" is.
No, sweetie. You need to be an American citizen to vote, of a particular age. You prove this by ID. It's pretty simple. Those of us who are logical understand to satisfy the voting requirements, one must produce an ID.
Quote
:rolleyes: Oh, so I shouldn't have to show ID to create a bank account?
It should be up to the bank.
Quote
Oooohhh, another emphatic, completely unsubstantiated statement of yours!
Wow, I'm amazed by your articulation and debating skills, I really am.
Freedom of speech is protected under the 1st amendment, yet it can be violated for the public interest.
Example?
QuoteDitto with every other amendment, even the 13th, for fuck's sake. Explain why the 2nd should have a special exemption from this hat-tip to pragmatism.
Because 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.
Quote
Reading, taxed. It's not that hard. Let me repeat to you the text you just quoted and, you know, are supposed to actually respond to:
"No other constitutional right is absolute; even the 13th can be violated when a wartime draft is necessary. Why is the 2nd uniquely sacrosanct to fanatical conservatives? Do you also protest libel and slander laws in the name of the 1st?"
You see? I made a contention, and then supported it with two specific examples. Funny that you never bothered to address them.
You didn't make a contention. For example, you don't understand the Bill of Rights protects us from the government. You are so uneducated about the Constitution that it is hard to have a serious discussion with you about it. Libel and slander, for example, are handled in civil court. How do you not know this?
Quote
Oh, so I could threaten to kill my neighbor, and then tell the judge that I was just exercising my 1st amendment right to free speech? :rolleyes:
No. It is against the law.
Quote
Newsflash: none of the amendments are absolute, and it's pretty pathetic that you continue to insist that they are after several specific examples to the contrary were provided to you.
You really need to understand what the Constitution is. You have absolutely no clue. It's adorable, don't get me wrong.
Quote from: taxed on August 11, 2014, 01:17:59 PM
One should be able to prove they are an American citizen.
And using the equivalent logic, one should be able to prove reliability and good faith with a background check.
Quote
You continue to reference logic, something you have no knowledge or experience with. I, and many of us here, have used logic in the real world. You haven't. It's adorable, but you need to know your place, intellectually. The real world isn't a college class where you fail all the way up to tenure.
Then perhaps you should be familiar with the "ad hominem", and how you are committing one here, since you eagerly tried to psychoanalyze me through your computer screen instead of, you know, trying to understand the point. :rolleyes:
Quote
No, sweetie. You need to be an American citizen to vote, of a particular age. You prove this by ID.
Obviously my argument from analogy was a little complicated for you. Yes, and the entire point is, so long as you accept the premise "you need to not be dangerous to own a gun", both on common sense and the fact that a "well regulated militia" is
not comprised of criminals, the exact same logic leads to the necessity of background checks. You know, the same background checks we have for
everything else of relevance.Quote
It should be up to the bank.
Shouldn't banks be forced to require you verify your identity before you withdraw money from an account? Since you seem to think the right to do X means the right to do X without any sort of prerequisite paperwork or precautions whatsoever.
Quote
Example?
You can't threaten my life, and you can't harass me. You can't even protest in certain areas at certain locations. Why is the 2nd amendment special, out of our entire Constitution?
Quote
Because 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.
And it's not exactly rocket science to figure out how background checks might be conducive to a "well regulated" militia.
Quote
You didn't make a contention. For example, you don't understand the Bill of Rights protects us from the government.
And the Supreme Court, along with all sane persons, have realized that rights are flexible, because we live in a world a little more complicated than what you're imagining. That's why you can't threaten someone's life and then hide behind the 1st.
Quote
You are so uneducated about the Constitution that it is hard to have a serious discussion with you about it. Libel and slander, for example, are handled in civil court. How do you not know this?
You are a terrible bluffer. To pretend you're an expert on the Constitution, please actually read it first. "
Congress shall make no law..." where does it exclude the application of the 1st to the criminal courts? The restriction applies across any legislation made by Congress, a restriction later incorporated to the states and other governments by the Supreme Court. Funny that the Supreme Court has on multiple times considered the constitutionality of libel laws, when by your brain damaged reading of the 1st amendment, it's not even an issue.
So, your google-warrior bluffing aside, we're back to square one: the 1st amendment can be qualified with prudence. Explain why the 2nd is uniquely sacrosanct.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 10:46:21 AM
As burning the US flag and trashing a football team are victimless crimes, your analogy has nothing whatsoever to do with my own, ie, libel and slander laws, the war draft, and laws against harassment and threats, all of which technically violate your constitutional rights.
The analogy goes to my point, not yours - Different people will decide different things are "public good". The argument that liberty can be curtailed willy-nilly as long as someone decides it is "public good" is basically a license for whatever despot happens to be in power to do whatever they want.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 10:46:21 AM
Or the Courts' concessions to pragmatism. Nowhere in the amendments is there room for libel or slander laws, and nowhere in the Bill of Rights are the restrictions extended to the state governments. Sane minds realized that these were all necessary, and you don't have a problem with any of them.
No, sorry - just no - The Supreme Court gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison, (1803). No place in the constitution do they have that power. here are some reactions of Thomas Jefferson (he wrote much of the constitution) after the case.
"But the Chief Justice says, 'There must be an ultimate arbiter somewhere.' True, there must; but does that prove it is either party? The ultimate arbiter is the people of the Union, assembled by their deputies in convention, at the call of Congress or of two-thirds of the States. Let them decide to which they mean to give an authority claimed by two of their organs. And it has been the peculiar wisdom and felicity of our Constitution, to have provided this peaceable appeal, where that of other nations is at once to force."
—Thomas Jefferson to William Johnson, 1823. ME 15:451
"The Constitution . . . meant that its coordinate branches should be checks on each other. But the opinion which gives to the judges the right to decide what laws are constitutional and what not, not only for themselves in their own sphere of action but for the Legislature and Executive also in their spheres, would make the Judiciary a despotic branch."
—Thomas Jefferson to Abigail Adams, 1804. ME 11:51
He wrote against it until his death.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 10:46:21 AM
By this logic, it should be OK for me to drive intoxicated without a license, so long as I don't actually run you over. :rolleyes:
OK with me, but when you do hit someone - they should make an example out of you (to make others think twice)
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 10:46:21 AM
I wasn't aware that inhaling diluted methane was somehow analogous to firearm possession in any sort of realistic danger assessment.
Owning a firearm is not dangerous unless your a moron (or liberal) in which case you are most likely to shoot yourself - in which case I would say the world is a better place without you in the human gene pool.
If you are a mad dip$hit, and want to walk into a mall and mass shoot; no problem - that's why I carry.
For the poor suckers that can't defend themselves (or complied with those stupid "no gun" signs) - I guess they might have an issue. But still, they have a better chance of being struck by lightning.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 11, 2014, 08:02:15 PM
The analogy goes to my point, not yours - Different people will decide different things are "public good". The argument that liberty can be curtailed willy-nilly as long as someone decides it is "public good" is basically a license for whatever despot happens to be in power to do whatever they want.
So your argument is that, because people abuse the phrase "public good", the concept shouldn't factor into our decision making at all? Even though the "general welfare" is explicitly referenced in the Constitution? By that logic, we shouldn't use science to inform our decisions, because science is frequently abused. The more reasonable approach would be to come up with a logical and sensible definition of "public good", so we can clearly figure out where the phrase is being abused. This actually isn't very difficult, and it's certainly preferable to your bizarre assertion that we should just make amendment rights absolute and inviolable because doing anything otherwise would be too difficult.
Quote
No, sorry - just no - The Supreme Court gave themselves that power in Marbury v. Madison, (1803). No place in the constitution do they have that power.
Though I disagree, the bounds of the Courts' powers are not of primary concern in this debate. What matters is, do you disagree with laws against death threats and false advertising, or the implementation of the draft under any circumstances? If you support any sort of regulation on speech or the myriad of other constitutional rights, you are conceding to the same logic that leads to background checks. The 2nd amendment is not special out of the whole Constitution.
Quote
OK with me, but when you do hit someone - they should make an example out of you (to make others think twice)
That's
absurdly and quite dangerously unrealistic. Saying that it's OK to do any sort of behavior, no matter how potentially risky to others, so long as you are lucky enough not to actually hurt anyone else, is just the precipice of stupidity. Crime
prevention is just as important as post-hoc punishment. By your policies, we shouldn't charge anyone for shooting a gun at someone so long as they don't hit, and we should let our kids get into cars with strangers until they actually get kidnapped;
then we'll "make an example" out of them for their siblings. :rolleyes:
Quote
Owning a firearm is not dangerous unless your a moron (or liberal) in which case you are most likely to shoot yourself - in which case I would say the world is a better place without you in the human gene pool.
Right, because obviously you're
only possibly going to shoot yourself, and nobody else, and obviously your death is not going to affect anybody else, because we're all hermits and it's not like we have families, pay taxes, have occupations and investments or anything like that. :rolleyes: And of course, being a moron is the only possible way a guy with a gun could be dangerous...I can't really think of
any other type of person that I might not want holding one. :rolleyes:
Quote
If you are a mad dip$hit, and want to walk into a mall and mass shoot; no problem - that's why I carry.
Yeah, because you obviously live in a fantasy land that has absolutely no connection to the "real world", where you actually think it's sound legal policy to permit reckless behavior so long as it doesn't directly kill anyone, and where the only dangerous people with firearms are morons, and not, you know...
Quote
For the poor suckers that can't defend themselves (or complied with those stupid "no gun" signs) - I guess they might have an issue. But still, they have a better chance of being struck by lightning.
Yeah, because obviously owning a firearm renders you immune to any sort of bad guy with a firearm, because you're movie-Clint Eastwood with Jedi-force-powers and could never possibly get blindsided by anybody. :rolleyes:
None of your arguments even bother to address the point, which is background checks, not banning guns. If you're a responsible owner, background checks would be a couple of minutes of your time - that you don't think human lives are worth a minor inconvenience is mildly disturbing.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 08:58:54 PM
So your argument is that, because people abuse the phrase "public good", the concept shouldn't factor into our decision making at all? Even though the "general welfare" is explicitly referenced in the Constitution? By that logic, we shouldn't use science to inform our decisions, because science is frequently abused. The more reasonable approach would be to come up with a logical and sensible definition of "public good", so we can clearly figure out where the phrase is being abused. This actually isn't very difficult, and it's certainly preferable to your bizarre assertion that we should just make amendment rights absolute and inviolable because doing anything otherwise would be too difficult.
The constitution creates a federal government of "limited and enumerated powers." Your interpretation of "general welfare" (or "public good") essentially creates a government of unlimited power. All one would need do is claim "general welfare" to pass any law.
My argument is that if you want to give the government power to curtail the individual liberty spelled out in the 2nd amendment; you need to "enumerate" that power in the constitution via the amendment process.
So you understand where I am coming from: I don't think the federal government should be passing defamation statutes; making drugs illegal; regulating alcohol or any number of things that are not within the enumerated powers it has.
But they, like you - following the twisted logic of 9 glorified ambulance chasers who gave themselves the power to "interpret" - choose to read "general welfare" as "anything we want at the moment" and "interstate commerce" as "all commerce" (and sometimes blind Texas salamanders are considered commerce: Google it).
Some things may need regulation (like you driving drunk), these should be debated and possibly regulated at the State and/or local level.
You should know I find some of your arguments intellectually dishonest. For example, comparing gun ownership to drunk driving; as if owning a gun is wreck less behavior. A better analogy would be Drunk driving Vs. Drunk shooting - But you do want simple gun ownership to be equated with recklessness don't you? It's dangerous to have a gun in your opinion, just having one? after all, it does not take 30 round to kill a deer, right?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 11, 2014, 08:58:54 PM
...What matters is, do you disagree with laws against death threats and false advertising, or the implementation of the draft under any circumstances? If you support any sort of regulation on speech or the myriad of other constitutional rights, you are conceding to the same logic that leads to background checks. The 2nd amendment is not special out of the whole Constitution.
Yes, I agree 100%
Both liberals and conservatives are willing to ignore the constitution - they just disagree on which parts should be ignored. Libs will trash the 2nd amendment all day, conservatives find some imaginary power the government has to tell people what they can and can't consume (a violation of the 9th and 10th amendments)
9th - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights,
shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
10th - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively,
or to the people
I once had a heated debate on this forum with some of the conservatives. The topic was illegal drugs, the drug war and marijuana. I tried to explain to them that they can't pick and choose when the federal government gets to ignore the constitution, and when it doesn't. Where in the constitution does the fed get the authority to tell grown adults of sound mind and body, what they can and can not consume? The answer is - the fed does not have that power.
But conservatives are willing to look the other way; and in the next breath they will proclaim that Obama care is unconstitutional (and it is). I explained the inconsistency and how the same reasoning used for the drug war (general welfare, commerce clause bla, bla, bla...) is how liberals justify Obama care, 2nd amendment restrictions ect... In reality, all these things are unconstitutional.
Alas, they went to the favorite fallback posture of liberals and conservatives alike - name calling.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 12, 2014, 11:36:40 PM
Yes, I agree 100%
Both liberals and conservatives are willing to ignore the constitution - they just disagree on which parts should be ignored. Libs will trash the 2nd amendment all day, conservatives find some imaginary power the government has to tell people what they can and can't consume (a violation of the 9th and 10th amendments)
9th - The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people
10th - The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people
I once had a heated debate on this forum with some of the conservatives. The topic was illegal drugs, the drug war and marijuana. I tried to explain to them that they can't pick and choose when the federal government gets to ignore the constitution, and when it doesn't. Where in the constitution does the fed get the authority to tell grown adults of sound mind and body, what they can and can not consume? The answer is - the fed does not have that power.
But conservatives are willing to look the other way; and in the next breath they will proclaim that Obama care is unconstitutional (and it is). I explained the inconsistency and how the same reasoning used for the drug war (general welfare, commerce clause bla, bla, bla...) is how liberals justify Obama care, 2nd amendment restrictions ect... In reality, all these things are unconstitutional.
Alas, they went to the favorite fallback posture of liberals and conservatives alike - name calling.
Your style of using of terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' as pejoratives is, um, name-calling. You seem quite comfortable calling some of the folks here 'conservatives,' which appears to signify to you a rigidity of thought and belief, and an inability to see other viewpoints. Since you clearly see yourself outside that box, what shall we call you? (Somethings besides 'enlightened,' please.)
Novanglus: Can you explain to me why conservatives don't trust the government to regulate industries or impose basic safety restrictions, and consistently lament that the government is too dangerous to be trusted to restrict our gun ownership or our cigars, but then want the government to dictate who you can marry, what contraceptives you can use, and whether or not you can sell your own body for sex? It doesn't make much sense to me at all, but maybe that's because I'm assuming the ideology is based on logical consistency and not political pandering.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 12, 2014, 11:20:59 AM
The constitution creates a federal government of "limited and enumerated powers."
Define "limited and enumerated". You presumably find it within the government's "limited" powers to persecute death threats, even though that's technically a violation of the 1st amendment, and the draft in cases of war, even though that is technically a violation of the 13th amendment. The 2nd just appears to be special to you, for some reason.
Quote
Your interpretation of "general welfare" (or "public good") essentially creates a government of unlimited power. All one would need do is claim "general welfare" to pass any law.
No, we've
already used that to legislate against libel and misleading marketing. And at least I have a definition of "general welfare" at all, whereas you've basically pretended that the phrase does not exist.
Quote
My argument is that if you want to give the government power to curtail the individual liberty spelled out in the 2nd amendment; you need to "enumerate" that power in the constitution via the amendment process.
We didn't do that when we restricted cigarette companies' advertising rights, which has potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The 1st amendment is more fundamental than the 2nd, no?
Quote
So you understand where I am coming from: I don't think the federal government should be passing defamation statutes; making drugs illegal; regulating alcohol or any number of things that are not within the enumerated powers it has.
But you presumably have no problem with persecuting people who give death threats, no? Can I come outside your lawn and threaten to murder you and your family, with all the protections of my 1st amendment liberties? Or am I, at the least, allowed to block up a major interstate highway in perpetuity while protesting for animal rights?
Quote
But they, like you - following the twisted logic of 9 glorified ambulance chasers who gave themselves the power to "interpret" - choose to read "general welfare" as "anything we want at the moment" and "interstate commerce" as "all commerce" (and sometimes blind Texas salamanders are considered commerce: Google it).
Don't be an idiot; background checks serve an obvious utilitarian purpose and are, at the worst, an inconvenience for honest gun owners, and yet you pretend that the only justification we have for it is "anything we want at the moment". As though background checks weren't already common-sense procedures for driving an automobile or registering to vote.
Quote
Some things may need regulation (like you driving drunk), these should be debated and possibly regulated at the State and/or local level.
So if a state wanted to allow people to drive automobiles under the influence, it should be allowed to do so? Even though this is a clear violation of the "general welfare" under even the most narrow definition of the phrase?
Quote
You should know I find some of your arguments intellectually dishonest. For example, comparing gun ownership to drunk driving; as if owning a gun is wreck less behavior. A better analogy would be Drunk driving Vs. Drunk shooting - But you do want simple gun ownership to be equated with recklessness don't you? It's dangerous to have a gun in your opinion, just having one? after all, it does not take 30 round to kill a deer, right?
You're not following this: I did not compare gun ownership to drunk driving. I compared letting anyone buy a gun without any sort of screening process to letting drunk people drive because both governmental acts of negligence could endanger the public good, and because neither government regulation would actually deter good citizens from driving or owning guns.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 13, 2014, 12:16:32 PM
Your style of using of terms like 'liberal' and 'conservative' as pejoratives is, um, name-calling. You seem quite comfortable calling some of the folks here 'conservatives,' which appears to signify to you a rigidity of thought and belief, and an inability to see other viewpoints. Since you clearly see yourself outside that box, what shall we call you? (Somethings besides 'enlightened,' please.)
Your highness will do. :lol:
Just joking. You can call me Libertarian; possibly a constitutionalist; an American; or Novanglus. :thumbsup:
I call conservatives - conservatives because that is what they call themselves, ditto for the liberals.
If my writing style seems to be "pejorative" toward conservatives and liberals, that's because their respective philosophies are .... well... illegitimate sometimes.
The funny part is that both liberals and conservatives use the same reasoning to violate each others rights. They just have different issues that they feel are worth trampling the constitution over.
Conservatives - The drug war, asset confiscation, militarized police ... no problem .... its for the good of the people; but don't you touch my guns!
Liberals - Guns are evil! outlaw them! ... it's for the good of the people- Don't you dare restrict live birth abortions.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 13, 2014, 07:53:53 PM
Conservatives - The drug war, asset confiscation, militarized police ... no problem .... its for the good of the people; but don't you touch my guns!
Huh? Since when are these conservative positions?
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 06:32:05 PM
Novanglus: Can you explain to me why conservatives don't trust the government to regulate industries or impose basic safety restrictions, and consistently lament that the government is too dangerous to be trusted to restrict our gun ownership or our cigars, but then want the government to dictate who you can marry, what contraceptives you can use, and whether or not you can sell your own body for sex? It doesn't make much sense to me at all, but maybe that's because I'm assuming the ideology is based on logical consistency and not political pandering.
I don't trust the government because it is the only entity that we as a society allow to use aggression - which makes government a dangerous but necessary entity (The solution is to keep its power limited and enumerated).
Why the apparent inconsistency in the conservative philosophy? I don't know. I puzzle over this all the time.
I think conservatives don't mind letting big government stick their noses in all those social issues you mention is basically "selfishness" - if it does not effect them directly - let the government have at it.
I have no problem with people taking whatever contraceptive they want - just don't force your neighbors to pay for it via taxes. And "force" is not an exaggeration - If they don't pay taxes the government will come with guns at some point (ask Wesley Snipes).
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 06:32:05 PM
Define "limited and enumerated". You presumably find it within the government's "limited" powers to persecute death threats, even though that's technically a violation of the 1st amendment, and the draft in cases of war, even though that is technically a violation of the 13th amendment. The 2nd just appears to be special to you, for some reason.
"limited and enumerated" means the federal government can ONLY make laws (limited) in regards to the specific powers granted to it in the constitution (enumerated). In other words - The government does not have any powers that are not spelled out in the constitution.
No, persecuting death threats is not for the federal government - death threats generally violate state laws and are prosecuted by states. States, are the proper place for such restrictions on citizens rights. Does the fed do it? yes, sometimes they do - I don't agree with it, but I tolerate it (as opposed to armed insurrection). The 1st and 2nd amendments are special to me; personally have decided that I draw the line here, I will not tolerate it (armed insurrection).
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 06:32:05 PM
No, we've already used that to legislate against libel and misleading marketing. And at least I have a definition of "general welfare" at all, whereas you've basically pretended that the phrase does not exist.
The term "general welfare" in the constitution was meant to be a qualification on the enumerated powers, specifically the power to tax. I will let Thomas Jefferson answer you:
"The laying of taxes is the power, and the general welfare the purpose for which the power is to be exercised. They [Congress] are not to lay taxes ad libitum for any purpose they please; but only to pay the debts or provide for the welfare of the Union. In like manner, they are not to do anything they please to provide for the general welfare, but only to lay taxes for that purpose."
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 06:32:05 PM
We didn't do that when we restricted cigarette companies' advertising rights, which has potentially saved hundreds of thousands of lives. The 1st amendment is more fundamental than the 2nd, no?
Yes, but the 2nd is the final security measure of the 1st (which is why a draw the line there)
And if states wanted to restrict advertising, I would be ok with that - I don't think the fed should be doing it. Why you ask? because the federal government is dangerous (which is why the framers did not give it that power). As for saving lives - we could save even more lives if we made every one walk around wearing a crash helmet and rubber duck floaty thing, but what kind of life would it be - I'll take my chances.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 06:32:05 PM
But you presumably have no problem with persecuting people who give death threats, no? Can I come outside your lawn and threaten to murder you and your family, with all the protections of my 1st amendment liberties? Or am I, at the least, allowed to block up a major interstate highway in perpetuity while protesting for animal rights?
You would be violating state laws (states do have the right to make reasonable restrictions).
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on August 13, 2014, 06:32:05 PM
So if a state wanted to allow people to drive automobiles under the influence, it should be allowed to do so? Even though this is a clear violation of the "general welfare" under even the most narrow definition of the phrase?
It's not a violation of the "general welfare" clause (read my Jefferson quote).
The federal government currently has NO statutes against drunk driving unless you are on federal land. All the DUI laws are state laws, as it should be. Would it be Ok for a State to let you drive drunk - Theoretically they could do that now if they wanted, but they don't.
Quote from: taxed on August 13, 2014, 08:49:10 PM
Huh? Since when are these conservative positions?
Since the last time I argued with you, quiller and that other guy (can't remember his name), over the constitutionality of the drug war.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 13, 2014, 09:18:50 PM
Since the last time I argued with you, quiller and that other guy (can't remember his name), over the constitutionality of the drug war.
Weird. I haven't argued about the drug war in years. Maybe I'm sleepwalking?
Quote from: Novanglus on August 13, 2014, 09:09:32 PM
I don't trust the government because it is the only entity that we as a society allow to use aggression - which makes government a dangerous but necessary entity (The solution is to keep its power limited and enumerated).
Why the apparent inconsistency in the conservative philosophy? I don't know. I puzzle over this all the time.
I think conservatives don't mind letting big government stick their noses in all those social issues you mention is basically "selfishness" - if it does not effect them directly - let the government have at it.
I have no problem with people taking whatever contraceptive they want - just don't force your neighbors to pay for it via taxes. And "force" is not an exaggeration - If they don't pay taxes the government will come with guns at some point (ask Wesley Snipes).
Do you think conservatives "stuck their noses" into the issue of contraceptive availability?
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 14, 2014, 07:48:11 PM
Do you think conservatives "stuck their noses" into the issue of contraceptive availability?
Occasionally, some of them do. The average conservative not so much; most of the ones I have talked to have reasonable complaints regarding contraception and the government. They don't care if you take birth control or use condoms - they just don't want to have to buy it for you. They also don't want pay for contraceptives (via taxes) and have the government turn around and give it to their kids at school.
That's reasonable to me.
After all, If I want to give my kid birth control pills - I will do it myself.
And if I don't want them to have it - where does the government get the audacity to give it to them anyway!
Every now and then you run across a conservative bible thumper who is more then willing to use the government and the force they bring to the table, in order to restrict access to contraceptives. Thankfully, I find that they are the exception and not the rule.
Quote from: Novanglus on August 14, 2014, 11:32:35 PM
Occasionally, some of them do. The average conservative not so much; most of the ones I have talked to have reasonable complaints regarding contraception and the government. They don't care if you take birth control or use condoms - they just don't want to have to buy it for you. They also don't want pay for contraceptives (via taxes) and have the government turn around and give it to their kids at school.
That's reasonable to me.
After all, If I want to give my kid birth control pills - I will do it myself.
And if I don't want them to have it - where does the government get the audacity to give it to them anyway!
Every now and then you run across a conservative bible thumper who is more then willing to use the government and the force they bring to the table, in order to restrict access to contraceptives. Thankfully, I find that they are the exception and not the rule.
You raise an interesting and valid point. In my view true conservatives must have a little libertarian in them with the contraception issue as a good example. I don't care, but should not be forced to fund other people's choices. Too often social issues become conservative/liberal issues when , in fact, they are individual values choices. To me conservatism is not about social issues as much as fiscal and and national security issues.
Quote from: supsalemgr on August 15, 2014, 04:24:37 AM
You raise an interesting and valid point. In my view true conservatives must have a little libertarian in them with the contraception issue as a good example. I don't care, but should not be forced to fund other people's choices. Too often social issues become conservative/liberal issues when , in fact, they are individual values choices. To me conservatism is not about social issues as much as fiscal and and national security issues.
What young people fail to realize, is none of these issues were ever once considered political.
The commies have taken nearly every aspect of our lives and made it a divisive and political issue as a way of driving a wedge between age groups, race, heritage, culture, sex, you name it, they've made an issue out of it.
What makes us out to look like the bad guy in the eyes of the younger generation, is we were forced into a position of fighting for our way of life, or concede it to leftists.
This I believe is where Libertarians fail to see a Conservatives view on things, they see it as if it is us trying to take away Liberties, when in truth, it was leftists that created the problem in the first place and forced us to push back.
There was a time in this nation when it was libertarian in nature, but as time went by, it was the left wanting more structure, more laws, they forced the Libertarian to compromise, then once they accomplished that, they demanded more change, then more change, they were never happy, change it back, only this time....
And now look at us, we allowed the left to fuck up the country so bad, that it isn't even recognizable anymore.
Quote from: Solar on August 15, 2014, 06:24:09 AM
What young people fail to realize, is none of these issues were ever once considered political.
The commies have taken nearly every aspect of our lives and made it a divisive and political issue as a way of driving a wedge between age groups, race, heritage, culture, sex, you name it, they've made an issue out of it.
What makes us out to look like the bad guy in the eyes of the younger generation, is we were forced into a position of fighting for our way of life, or concede it to leftists.
This I believe is where Libertarians fail to see a Conservatives view on things, they see it as if it is us trying to take away Liberties, when in truth, it was leftists that created the problem in the first place and forced us to push back.
There was a time in this nation when it was libertarian in nature, but as time went by, it was the left wanting more structure, more laws, they forced the Libertarian to compromise, then once they accomplished that, they demanded more change, then more change, they were never happy, change it back, only this time....
And now look at us, we allowed the left to fuck up the country so bad, that it isn't even recognizable anymore.
What he said.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'gay marriage' has evolved from a ridiculous oxymoron, the stuff of teenage jokes, to a phrase that is not only common in the culture, but has been elevated to a legal, even constitutional, issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'partial birth abortion' has been transformed from a relatively unknown procedure that even the tackiest of tabloids wouldn't describe to a legal, constitutional issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, corporal punishment at school has changed from an event that was sure to be followed by corporal punishment at home to an event that is sure to be followed by criminal charges and/or a lawsuit against school personnel. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the act of opening a door for a lady has been transformed from a show of benevolent respect into a show of belittling contempt. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the United States, which once could be said to have never lost a foreign war, has become a nation that cannot win a foreign war, despite possessing the most powerful military forces on Earth. You can thank the Left for that.
The most frightening aspect of this post, as Solar understands, is that I could literally keep typing on this subject all day long because there is simply no end to the examples of the Left altering the landscape, tipping the playing field, moving the goalposts, insert your favorite metaphor here. The Left correctly perceives the overarching importance of its grip on public education, mass media, and the entertainment fields. These are the tools it uses to alter the perceptions of each generation as it emerges from the one before it. Kids growing up today will grow up in a world -- largely fashioned by the Left -- in which gay marriage is a serious social and political (civil rights!) issue and opening a door for a lady is a Thing Not Done.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 15, 2014, 10:02:50 AM
What he said.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'gay marriage' has evolved from a ridiculous oxymoron, the stuff of teenage jokes, to a phrase that is not only common in the culture, but has been elevated to a legal, even constitutional, issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'partial birth abortion' has been transformed from a relatively unknown procedure that even the tackiest of tabloids wouldn't describe to a legal, constitutional issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, corporal punishment at school has changed from an event that was sure to be followed by corporal punishment at home to an event that is sure to be followed by criminal charges and/or a lawsuit against school personnel. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the act of opening a door for a lady has been transformed from a show of benevolent respect into a show of belittling contempt. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the United States, which once could be said to have never lost a foreign war, has become a nation that cannot win a foreign war, despite possessing the most powerful military forces on Earth. You can thank the Left for that.
The most frightening aspect of this post, as Solar understands, is that I could literally keep typing on this subject all day long because there is simply no end to the examples of the Left altering the landscape, tipping the playing field, moving the goalposts, insert your favorite metaphor here. The Left correctly perceives the overarching importance of its grip on public education, mass media, and the entertainment fields. These are the tools it uses to alter the perceptions of each generation as it emerges from the one before it. Kids growing up today will grow up in a world -- largely fashioned by the Left -- in which gay marriage is a serious social and political (civil rights!) issue and opening a door for a lady is a Thing Not Done.
You're right, a post depicting everything the left has corrupted would take years to complete.
Curious, can you think of some aspect of culture that hasn't been politicized by the leftists?
Hell, even science has been corrupted now, the last vestige of truth and honesty.
It's for this very reason I believe we still have a chance to take back the country. The commies moved too quickly in putting a Marxist in the WH. Had they waited a short 30 years, they wouldn't be seeing the blow-back they are in TEA.
We were on slow boil to socialism, had they waited, none of us would be around that remembers how it's supposed to be.
Because they did what they did, the Dim party exposed themselves for what they truly are, communists, and by doing so literally killed the party as it's known today.
I believe it will take an entire generation for them to recover, simply because they used and abused the latest generation and will need new blood, a clean slate of blissful ignorance in which to corrupt, young people that have no historical reference to better times.
Yes my friend, Nov will be the blade of the executioner striking the neck of the Dim party.
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 15, 2014, 10:02:50 AM
What he said.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'gay marriage' has evolved from a ridiculous oxymoron, the stuff of teenage jokes, to a phrase that is not only common in the culture, but has been elevated to a legal, even constitutional, issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'partial birth abortion' has been transformed from a relatively unknown procedure that even the tackiest of tabloids wouldn't describe to a legal, constitutional issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, corporal punishment at school has changed from an event that was sure to be followed by corporal punishment at home to an event that is sure to be followed by criminal charges and/or a lawsuit against school personnel. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the act of opening a door for a lady has been transformed from a show of benevolent respect into a show of belittling contempt. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the United States, which once could be said to have never lost a foreign war, has become a nation that cannot win a foreign war, despite possessing the most powerful military forces on Earth. You can thank the Left for that.
The most frightening aspect of this post, as Solar understands, is that I could literally keep typing on this subject all day long because there is simply no end to the examples of the Left altering the landscape, tipping the playing field, moving the goalposts, insert your favorite metaphor here. The Left correctly perceives the overarching importance of its grip on public education, mass media, and the entertainment fields. These are the tools it uses to alter the perceptions of each generation as it emerges from the one before it. Kids growing up today will grow up in a world -- largely fashioned by the Left -- in which gay marriage is a serious social and political (civil rights!) issue and opening a door for a lady is a Thing Not Done.
I don't know about you. But my dad would come out of his grave and kick my ass if I did not open a door for a lady. (even if she was a lady of the night)
Quote from: TboneAgain on August 15, 2014, 10:02:50 AM
What he said.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'gay marriage' has evolved from a ridiculous oxymoron, the stuff of teenage jokes, to a phrase that is not only common in the culture, but has been elevated to a legal, even constitutional, issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the phrase 'partial birth abortion' has been transformed from a relatively unknown procedure that even the tackiest of tabloids wouldn't describe to a legal, constitutional issue. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, corporal punishment at school has changed from an event that was sure to be followed by corporal punishment at home to an event that is sure to be followed by criminal charges and/or a lawsuit against school personnel. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the act of opening a door for a lady has been transformed from a show of benevolent respect into a show of belittling contempt. You can thank the Left for that.
In the span of my lifetime, the United States, which once could be said to have never lost a foreign war, has become a nation that cannot win a foreign war, despite possessing the most powerful military forces on Earth. You can thank the Left for that.
The most frightening aspect of this post, as Solar understands, is that I could literally keep typing on this subject all day long because there is simply no end to the examples of the Left altering the landscape, tipping the playing field, moving the goalposts, insert your favorite metaphor here. The Left correctly perceives the overarching importance of its grip on public education, mass media, and the entertainment fields. These are the tools it uses to alter the perceptions of each generation as it emerges from the one before it. Kids growing up today will grow up in a world -- largely fashioned by the Left -- in which gay marriage is a serious social and political (civil rights!) issue and opening a door for a lady is a Thing Not Done.
Yes, the left is more dangerous then the right - That is why as a libertarian, I often hold my nose and vote Republican. I can't bring myself to vote for a Democrat, the ass backward economic medaling and social engineering is too much to stomach. Most of them are flat out socialist if not communist; some of them honestly don't realize it and others know what they are but lie. The corruption is ridiculous, Democrats will circle the wagons and defend the most outrageous corruption even when the are caught red handed - Republicans will generally toss out anyone caught red handed.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AMWhy do [some] conservatives continue to insist that the 2nd amendment forbids any gun control legislation, even those as simplistic and precedented as background checks?
What "forbids" the federal government to enact gun control legislation isn't the 2nd Amendment; it's the fact that no power was ever granted to it to allow it to have any interest whatsoever in the personal arms of the private citizen.
That means the 2nd Amendment does
nothing but redundantly forbid the federal government to exercise powers it was never granted.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AMTo be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute.
Who is arguing for "absolute" rights? The only people I hear blubbering about the "absolute" right to arms are anti-liberty people employing it as sophistry to argue for government's absolute power to regulate arms.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AMNRA logic would not be taken seriously were it by a guy who falsely yelled fire in a crowded theater, or who made death threats. No other right is unqualified, so exactly why do you think bearing arms should be exceptional?
Yours is the flawed logic. The possession and use of guns is "qualified" in exactly the same manner as the speech that you hold out as exemplary . . . Just like one can't falsely yell fire in a crowded theater, one can not brandish or threaten another with a firearm. Neither of those actions are exercises of any rights, speech or arms, which is what makes government's exercise of power restricting those actions legitimate.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AMSo yes, you have the right to own a gun. This does not mean that the government enact absolutely no regulations to qualify such a right;
All that tells me is that you are arguing from either a profound ignorance of what a right is or are purposely misrepresenting what a right is and its effect on government action.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AMyou know, such as how we already do not let minors own firearms.
Again, flawed logic. Minors have always had rights qualified because they are not considered full members of society. The obverse of that of course is, that all full members of society will have their right to arms recognized and protected . . . Hardly the conclusion you were hoping to prove.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AMDo you honestly believe that an armed populace would stand a chance against a modern military force?
Well, the 2nd Amendment doesn't demand tactical equivalency but it is good to remember that the founders / framers expected that whatever "standing army" could be amassed would be outnumbered ("opposed" was the word Madison used) by an overwhelming number of armed citizens.
Madison put the ratio at between 17 to 20 "citizens with arms in their hands" for each soldier (http://"http://www.constitution.org/fed/federa46.htm"); today that advantage has widened to around 25 armed citizens for every member of the active duty and reserve military.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AMAs a result, what both sides of the debate should be doing is answering the question: will a gun law cause more harm than good? Look at the empirical data and studies. If a regulation will save lives and improve the net state of society, it should be enacted regardless of the 2nd amendment.
That's not the legal standard (thankfully).
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 12:12:09 PMSo you don't believe in jails? After all they deprive you of liberty. The death penalty deprives you of life. So you're conceding that these rights are qualified, and "unalienable" was a rhetorical embellishment.
Those rights are impacted under accepted rules of due process. No right is absolute in an ordered society but under our form of government "rights" are considered to emanate from a plane above the legislative acts of man.
The Constitution is a charter of conferred powers, powers the people have always possessed and have only lent to government. All not conferred is retained by the people and that includes the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, free of any conditioning or qualification derived from the powers granted through the Constitution.
The Supreme Court has been boringly consistent re-affirming this principle for going on 140 years . . . That the right to arms is not granted, given, created or established by the 2nd Amendment thus the right to arms is not in any manner dependent on the Constitution for its existence.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 12:12:09 PMNaturally you also forget that these rights were by no means "self evident" since no society had truly implemented them until arguably a few decades ago in modern history. It took millions of lives, hardly sounds "self evident" to me, otherwise the Romans would have been a free society.
Well, arguably these concepts, (of inherent rights with some being so intrinsic that they can not be conferred to another -- AKA unalienable rights) originated as oppositional philosophies to the divine right of the King to rule. The great political treatises of the late 17th century from Locke and Sidney and especially Hutchenson, is when they made their debut.
Of course, back then the founders / framers didn't have the benefit of the wonderful communitarian philosophies of Marx and Engles . . . But that doesn't stop modern leftists from arguing those ideals are represented / supported in the US Constitution. That fact, that they are not supported is why leftists spend so much time trying to stomp out the foundational principles of the Constitution.
It seems like California has a little bright light. Very small though.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/11/12/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-California-Appeal-Eased-Concealed-Carry-Requirements-Stand (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/11/12/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-California-Appeal-Eased-Concealed-Carry-Requirements-Stand)
Quote from: Temp on November 13, 2014, 11:21:15 AM
It seems like California has a little bright light. Very small though.
http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/11/12/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-California-Appeal-Eased-Concealed-Carry-Requirements-Stand (http://www.breitbart.com/Breitbart-California/2014/11/12/Ninth-Circuit-Denies-California-Appeal-Eased-Concealed-Carry-Requirements-Stand)
:thumbsup: :thumbsup: :thumbsup:
This is excellent news and a slap upside the head of liberalism/Marxism.
Quote from: Sci Fi Fan on November 17, 2013, 08:52:59 AM
To be blunt here, none of our amendment rights are absolute. Your freedom of speech does not extend to libel or slander. Your freedom of religion stops where your religion conflicts with the law. Not even the 13 amendment is absolute. In all these instances, exceptions are made when your freedoms are outweighed by those of others, or the general welfare of society.
This is without a doubt the most commonly used fallacy of the gun control movement. The age old "You can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater. The problem with this statement is the manner it is used. The analogy given first by Oliver Wendall Holmes has been both misused and misunderstood since it was first uttered. What was originally meant by the analogy is that one cannot cause harm in the exercise of their rights, then hide behind the Bill of Rights to escape any consequences of their actions. The fact is you CAN yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and the ONLY time there will be legal action (either criminal or civil) for doing so is if another person is harmed by your doing so. In ALL OTHER CASES, the most that would happen is an usher may see you to the nearest exit.
The same is true in respect to all other rights. NO RIGHT is PRE-limited by law or regulation. It is ONLY limited in the fact that one cannot excuse harmful action by claiming they were "just exercising their rights." The reality is the ONLY limit of rights is when they cause harm, and then only after the fact.
So, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the PEOPLE (not the Militia alone, but the PEOPLE who make up the militia) have the protected right (NOT "granted" by the 2nd Amendment, but PROTECTED from government interference) to keep and bear arms. Now, the limit on this right, if one were to put it ON THE SAME LEVEL as other rights (not ABOVE, as the author tries to claim, but EQUAL) then the only limitation government can place on that right is to prosecute those who do harm.
The government does not regulate speech, nor prosecute people who say things or write things that do not result in harm. Nor does the government regulate or prosecute people for exercising any other right, UNLESS the action results in harm. Yet the "reasonable" gun control advocates keep claiming they need to regulate the 2nd Amendment, even though the vast majority of firearms owners have done no harm.
WHAT IS THE HARM to you, or anyone, if I were to own a (lets go big, but not TOO ridiculous), a 30mm Vulcan gatling gun? Can you point to the harm in mere ownership of ANY weapon? You claim 2nd Amendment advocates put the 2nd on a higher pedestal. I counter with the claim that it is gun control advocates who put the 2nd on a LOWER pedestal.
For no other right do people advocate the idea that we must prove in advance that we are "worthy" of exercising that right. (at least, no more than a handful of extremist kooks) For no other right do people advocate that we must PAY for that right. (REF. ALL gun licensing laws) The closest one can come to give an example of pre-limiting a right is those areas that have voter ID laws. And that does not work in favor of regulating the 2nd Amendment because the right to vote is already limited to CITIZENS who are of age 18 or older, and it is therefore in the best interest of the people to assure that those casting votes are eligible under the Constitution. But, of note, is the fact that all other means of regulating the vote, such as poll taxes and exams, have been ruled as unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment has no such restrictions, but is rather protected for the PEOPLE. (That means ALL of us, every Jack, Tom, and Christine.) Therefore, to treat the 2nd Amendment EQUALLY to all other rights, the state must be able to prove harm PRIOR to regulating the right, or prosecuting a person for improperly exercising that right.
Quote from: zewazir on December 08, 2014, 10:11:27 PM
This is without a doubt the most commonly used fallacy of the gun control movement. The age old "You can't yell 'fire!' in a crowded theater. The problem with this statement is the manner it is used. The analogy given first by Oliver Wendall Holmes has been both misused and misunderstood since it was first uttered. What was originally meant by the analogy is that one cannot cause harm in the exercise of their rights, then hide behind the Bill of Rights to escape any consequences of their actions. The fact is you CAN yell "FIRE!" in a crowded theater, and the ONLY time there will be legal action (either criminal or civil) for doing so is if another person is harmed by your doing so. In ALL OTHER CASES, the most that would happen is an usher may see you to the nearest exit.
The same is true in respect to all other rights. NO RIGHT is PRE-limited by law or regulation. It is ONLY limited in the fact that one cannot excuse harmful action by claiming they were "just exercising their rights." The reality is the ONLY limit of rights is when they cause harm, and then only after the fact.
So, when it comes to the 2nd Amendment, the PEOPLE (not the Militia alone, but the PEOPLE who make up the militia) have the protected right (NOT "granted" by the 2nd Amendment, but PROTECTED from government interference) to keep and bear arms. Now, the limit on this right, if one were to put it ON THE SAME LEVEL as other rights (not ABOVE, as the author tries to claim, but EQUAL) then the only limitation government can place on that right is to prosecute those who do harm.
The government does not regulate speech, nor prosecute people who say things or write things that do not result in harm. Nor does the government regulate or prosecute people for exercising any other right, UNLESS the action results in harm. Yet the "reasonable" gun control advocates keep claiming they need to regulate the 2nd Amendment, even though the vast majority of firearms owners have done no harm.
WHAT IS THE HARM to you, or anyone, if I were to own a (lets go big, but not TOO ridiculous), a 30mm Vulcan gatling gun? Can you point to the harm in mere ownership of ANY weapon? You claim 2nd Amendment advocates put the 2nd on a higher pedestal. I counter with the claim that it is gun control advocates who put the 2nd on a LOWER pedestal.
For no other right do people advocate the idea that we must prove in advance that we are "worthy" of exercising that right. (at least, no more than a handful of extremist kooks) For no other right do people advocate that we must PAY for that right. (REF. ALL gun licensing laws) The closest one can come to give an example of pre-limiting a right is those areas that have voter ID laws. And that does not work in favor of regulating the 2nd Amendment because the right to vote is already limited to CITIZENS who are of age 18 or older, and it is therefore in the best interest of the people to assure that those casting votes are eligible under the Constitution. But, of note, is the fact that all other means of regulating the vote, such as poll taxes and exams, have been ruled as unconstitutional.
The 2nd Amendment has no such restrictions, but is rather protected for the PEOPLE. (That means ALL of us, every Jack, Tom, and Christine.) Therefore, to treat the 2nd Amendment EQUALLY to all other rights, the state must be able to prove harm PRIOR to regulating the right, or prosecuting a person for improperly exercising that right.
Well stated zewazir and welcome to the forum.
Think they will get away with this ?
This is like the inmates making the rules for the prison.