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.   

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.   

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.     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.   

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.   

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.
Just joking. You can call me Libertarian; possibly a constitutionalist; an American; or Novanglus. 

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.