Paranoia runs deep

[Fescue4u]

Among the Anti Bill of Rights crowd.

This is my first day in the "gun dungeon" and Im shocked at the paranoia, and naiviety of the gun control zealots.

Not an attack on anyone in particular, just an observation of how far we neeed to go to educate people and weed out the bigotry.

[CO Liberal]

1. We'r Not Anti Bill of Rights

We're just anti guns getting into the hands of irresponsible assholes.

[Fescue4u]

2. The Freepers say the same thing.

About irresponsible assholes people who"abuse" the 1st ammendment.

And about irresponsible assholes who hide behind "privacy"

And about assholes who hide behind "equal protection"

Folks, we cannot pick and choose the portions of the Bill Of Rights that we like best.

The Bill of Rights is a set. Take out one and it becomes unbalanced and destined for irrelevancy.

[MrBenchley]

4. And what do they say about guns over there?

[Fescue4u]

8. Over There?

Oh you must mean the RW board.

Well I don't go there, and I use freepers more generically to describe republicans.

[MrBenchley]

10. Maybe you ought to check it out

Some of us would be shocked at the naivete of someone who would pontificate about what a certain group of people say without going over to check it out...

[Fescue4u]

16. Fair enough...

maybe I should.

[Spentastic]

38. So speaketh who?

"The Bill of Rights is a set. Take out one and it becomes unbalanced and destined for irrelevancy."

And your qualifications as a constitutional scholar please? Or are you just saying stuff?

If it's the latter I'll posit

The Bill of Rights is limitied in its relevance today due to it's age. Compromises must be made in order to create a better soceity.

See it's easy.

[Spoonman]

47. Ask yourself the same question

"The Bill of Rights is limitied in its relevance today due to it's age."

And your qualifications as a constitutional scholar please?

Now my question - What concern is the US Bill of Rights to those who do not live under them?

[Spentastic]

60. Comprehension

I asked what the posters qualifications were to make unsubstantiated claims about the Bill of Rights. Reading again, I'd further like to know how they can see into the future.

You ask me why I should be concerned with the U.S Bill of Rights. How about I say "because I want to be", or "because I think I'm clever" or "because polar bears live in Greenland". I didn't realise that "concerned with" meant I'd require the same qualifications as somebody stating that a certain course of action will lead inevitably to a stated conclusion. That requires evidence or evidence of other acheivements in that field. Furthermore, I didn't realise I wasn't allowed to comment on things that don't directly affect me.

For example I don't write "The Bill of rights is held as holy by gun bunnies because a part of it allows them to own lethal weaponry, this makes them feel big and enables violence. Therefore if we scrap the Bill of rights then there won't be any violence" Because that would be an opinion. It would also be a bollocks opinion. But apparently writing:

"Folks, we cannot pick and choose the portions of the Bill Of Rights that we like best.

The Bill of Rights is a set. Take out one and it becomes unbalanced and destined for irrelevancy."

Seems to be given a pass.

Nuance seem entirely lost here.

[DoNotRefill]

82. Ummm...

"The Bill of rights is held as holy by gun bunnies"

In America, "Gun Bunnies" is a reference used exclusively to refer to military artillerymen for crew-served towed artillery batteries. You might want to pick a different term.

[DoNotRefill]

81. Horseshit. HORSE SHIT.

"The Bill of Rights is limitied in its relevance today due to it's age. Compromises must be made in order to create a better soceity."

That is the biggest pile of unadulterated CRAP I've ever heard. IT'S MUCH MORE RELEVANT TODAY. Why? Because Government now has the ability to do all kinds of nasty stuff to citizens that they didn't used to be able to do.

I find it VERY interesting that you're willing to scrap the Bill of Rights in the name of "compromise". Would you be willing to "compromise" and go back to a full fledged monarchy if it promised a better society? I sure as hell wouldn't.

The idea of compromising on the Bill of Rights is completely and totally ANATHEMA to a Liberal position. you don't have to take my word on it and question MY credentials....ask the ACLU.

[jody]

83. What does the Dem Platform mean when it says

QUOTE
Judges and the Supreme Court. We will fight to fill the vacancies on the federal bench to make sure we have enough judges to promptly decide all cases and to end Republican delays in the Senate that have kept qualified nominees, especially women and minorities, waiting literally for years for a Senate vote. Democrats oppose efforts to strip the federal courts of jurisdiction to decide critical issues affecting workers, immigrants, veterans and others of access to justice. And, unlike Republicans, Al Gore will appoint justices to the Supreme Court who have a demonstrated concern for and commitment to the individual rights protected by our Constitution, including the right to privacy.
UNQUOTE

Is it possible for a person to be a Democrat and not support the party's "commitment to the individual rights protected by our Constitution"?

Where in the Constitution are rights spelled out except in the Bill of Rights?

See http://www.democrats.org/about/2000platform.html

[Pert_UK]

91. Doggy doo......DOGGY DOO!

"I find it VERY interesting that you're willing to scrap the Bill of Rights in the name of "compromise"."

Hmmm......Spen didn't say anything about "scapping" the Bill of Rights. He merely suggested that its "relevance" is "limited today". Now, that doesn't mean it's irrelevant - it means that some elements of the Bill of Rights, written a considerable time ago, may not be accurately or sensibly applied in accordance with the beliefs, environment or society of the modern age.

"IT'S MUCH MORE RELEVANT TODAY. Why? Because Government now has the ability to do all kinds of nasty stuff to citizens that they didn't used to be able to do." - now here I agree entirely, but this is the spirit, rather than the letter of the BoR that is important. This is the relevancy of the ideals and standards, not the precise wording of an antiquated document. The BoR is RELEVANT today and will be RELEVANT forever, but that doesn't mean that it's current, literal content will always make sense or prove useful in every context.

"Would you be willing to "compromise" and go back to a full fledged monarchy if it promised a better society?" - Back to the "monarchy" thing, eh? Well, as far as I can tell, examining the BoR to ensure that the intentions of the Founding Fathers are maintained even when their words become outmoded, is far removed from abolishing an entire political system and returning to unelected monarchy. It's hardly a reasonable comparison.....But while we're at it...

A monarchy seems less undemocratic than the unquestioning loyalty to the words of some men who died many years previously. I don't doubt their laudable, honorable intentions, but doesn't it go against the spirit of democracy and freedom of thought if you can't even countenance the thought of updating their words?

The thing is, arguments about "change one and we have to throw them all out" are patently false. Also, when we discuss "compromising" on the Bill of Rights, generally speaking nobody is demanding that the rights themselves be compromised. IIRC, The Bible speaks about the Sun going around a flat Earth, and yet nobody has a problem rejecting this idea whilst retaining the teachings of Jesus - it's not a "One out All out" situation....

Finally, and I can't be bothered to go into this at length, what you're actually do is fighting for the RKBA........Many people do not agree that the 2nd amendment grants this right.

I don't know enough about it to debate this point - you may be right, objectors may be right - but what I do know is that rejection of your interpretation of a specific small part of the BoR does not entail the rejection of the document as a whole. Retaining the BoR equally doesn't guarantee that your interpretation of the 2nd amendment will stand legally.

[DoNotRefill]

92. So, you want to update their words? Fine.

there's a process to do that, it's called "amendment". We've passed a fair number of constitutional amendments, and even once passed an amendment revoking a previous amendment. Is it easy to do? Of course not. It's set up that way deliberately to PROTECT us from 51% of the population forcing through repeal of our fundamental civil liberties. Think about what would have happened right after 9/11 if there had been relaxed standards....I can picture Ashcroft trying to ramrod an Amendment through the process making it OK to summarily execute suspected terrorists or Muslims. I think there might have been enough support to do it if it just required 50.1% of popular support.

In case you don't realize it, ALL of our bedrock civil liberties flow from the Bill of Rights and other Amendments. The Constitution itself id devoid of any serious guarantees of civil liberties. And I for one don't view self-defense (with or without a gun) as being an outmoded concept.

"A monarchy seems less undemocratic than the unquestioning loyalty to the words of some men who died many years previously. I don't doubt their laudable, honorable intentions, but doesn't it go against the spirit of democracy and freedom of thought if you can't even countenance the thought of updating their words?"

Horsecrap. The Constitution has a democratic process built into it to change it. I could live with an attempt to change the Constitution, but that's because I know that there is NO chance of that happening in my lifetime. It's difficult to change the Constitution on purpose, to protect everybody from people fucking with our rights just because they got 50.1% of the popular vote. Given the current administration, I can't help but wonder how many people would WANT the Constitution to be easier to change. If it were, burning flags, being gay, and abortions would probably all be illegal. That's not in our interests.

"The thing is, arguments about "change one and we have to throw them all out" are patently false."

When you weaken one, you set a very bad precedent that makes it easier to weaken the rest of them. Why do you think the ACLU takes some of the cases they do? It's not because they like Nazis and want Nazis marching in the streets, it's because if they can ban free speech for Nazis, it makes it easier to ban free speech for other people, too. Think about it...if there was a ruling from the Supreme Court saying "the right of the people" in the Second Amendment is a collective right, how long until they say "the right of the people" in the Fourth Amendment also is a collective right? After all, IDENTICAL language is used. If the Second Amendment was repealed, how long until somebody tried to repeal unpopular parts of the Fourth, Fifth, or Sixth Amendments? I've seen people on here say the Third Amendment is outdated. Does that mean it should be repealed? HELL NO. WE NEED IT.

"...what I do know is that rejection of your interpretation of a specific small part of the BoR does not entail the rejection of the document as a whole."

It does for the parts where identical language is used. IIRC, there's Supreme Court caselaw that says exactly that....that the same words/phrases must be interpreted the same everywhere, you can't have widely different interpretations of the same words from place to place. If "the right of the people" is redefined in the Second Amendment as a collective right, it's redefined EVERYWHERE it's used as a collective right, and then we're fucked.

Changing the Constitution and surrendering civil liberties strikes me as being an incredibly BAD idea, even if it's in the name of "progress".

[Spentastic]

96. Right that's it

How many more fucking times am I going to have to post things before people actually read them, take the effort to understand the point and then respond? God, I feel like Iverglass.

I wrote:

"And your qualifications as a constitutional scholar please? Or are you just saying stuff?

If it's the latter I'll posit

The Bill of Rights is limitied in its relevance today due to it's age. Compromises must be made in order to create a better soceity"

O.K let's actually read this again. The first bit is a question asking on what basis earlier statements are made. The next bit asks whether the poster is just spouting off. I then say "If it's the latter" meaning that if the poster is just spouting off, "I'll posit" meaning:

To put forward, as for consideration:

"The Bill of Rights is limitied in its relevance today due to it's age. Compromises must be made in order to create a better soceity."

So by my own admission, I'm not seriously putting this point of view forward as I don't feel adequately qualified to do so. I'm spouting off to highlight the hyperbole of the initial poster.

I then come back to find my post being attacked with such comments as

"I find it VERY interesting that you're willing to scrap the Bill of Rights in the name of "compromise". Would you be willing to "compromise" and go back to a full fledged monarchy if it promised a better society? I sure as hell wouldn't."

Which once again bears no relevance whatever to what I actually posted. Futhermore, It's attacking a position that I've ,made clear I do not hold.

[CO Liberal]

51. And Hold Up One (The Second) As More Important Than All The Others..

...and you do the same thing.

[Wcross]

5. Same here

We just have different ideas as to what needs to be done. I advocate stricter enforcement of the current laws, project exile, and gun saftey education. The majority of children and teenagers only education about guns come from the television and the movies. Its as if parents have delegated child rearing to the boob-tube. I had access to my own firearm from my 8th birthday to this day. I was taught gun saftey from my Father, and he took us to the range. I had limits and I was taught right from wrong.

[Terran]

43. wcross--OT

I advocate stricter enforcement of the current laws, project exile, and gun saftey education.

What is "project exile", please?

Dirk

[Wcross]

52. Project exile

An expedited federal prosecutive effort by the United States Attorney's Office, B.A.T.F., U.S. Marshal, and F.B.I., in coordination with the Richmond Commonwealth's Attorney's Office, Richmond Police Department, and the Virginia State Police to remove armed criminals from Richmond streets. The project has expanded into Norfolk\ Newport News, VA, and Rochester, NY.


http://www.vahv.org/Exile/

I know this link is from the evil NRA site, but I think it is a better way to reduce criminal homocide.

[Java]

36. Amazing response..suppose we consider a BOOK on how to make explosives?

And such a book being widely available to anyone?

[MrBenchley]

42. Or a book like this?

"At the "Crossroads of the West" gun show here last weekend, weapons dealers sold semi- automatic rifles and custom-made pistols, and ammunition wholesalers unloaded bullets by the case. But perhaps the most fearsome weapon for sale in the cavernous, crowded exposition center was a book.
Next to the Indian handicraft booth, Timothy W. Tobiason was selling printed and CD copies of his book, "Scientific Principles of Improvised Warfare and Home Defense Volume 6-1: Advanced Biological Weapons Design and Manufacture," a germ-warfare cookbook that bioterrorism experts say is accurate enough to be dangerous.
Mr. Tobiason, an agricultural-chemicals entrepreneur from Nebraska with a bitter hatred for the government, said he sold about 2,000 copies of his self-published book a year as he moved from gun show to gun show across America. "

http://www.rickross.com/reference/hate_groups/hategroups328.html

[Shanty Oilish]

65. Like the Anarchist's Cookbook

That's got some recipes. Or watch MacGyver.

[MrBenchley]

3. Gee, what crowd is that?

Would that be the gang that's trying to push John AshKKKroft's dishonest revisionist view of the Second Amendment?

"Im shocked at the paranoia, and naiviety of the gun control zealots."
Yeah, just listen to that constant hysterical wailing about "They're going to grab our guns!!" Oh, wait...that's not US...

[Fescue4u]

7. 'Going to grab our guns'

Hardly hysteria.

Anyone who doubts that the gun control zealots want to disarm American has not read up on the issue.

I remember clearly how HCI incs platform included even the banning of water guns (squirt guns). After the astonishing losses in 1994, they have hidden away their more extremist agenda...imo temporarily until the feasability of this increases.

As for Ashcroft, I think he's a steaming pile of dung, but the one thing he has gotten right is the the view of the 2nd ammendment.

[MrBenchley]

11. I rest my case...

[Fescue4u]

14. What would YOU do?

Assume for a minute that the entire gun industry and laws pertaining to such are under your control.

What would you do Mr Benchley?

I know what Mrs Feinstein would do. She would say to each and every american "Turn in your guns".....She has gone on record as saying so.

[MrBenchley]

19. Hahahahahahahahaa.....

"I know what Mrs Feinstein would do. She would say to each and every american "Turn in your guns".....She has gone on record as saying so."
What was that about paranoia and naivete, er, naivety? I think we've hit the motherload.

[Terran]

44. link to that assertion, please?

Feinstein is pretty centrist, and I find it hard to believe that she has recently made any such statement.

Dirk

[MrBenchley]

46. The google I found

linked to a website by someone in the actual gun industry, that claimed she said it on the TV show "69 Minutes" (sic) as part of a page full of bogus quotes.

http://www.vtgunsmiths.com/arms/ffquote.html

[Terran]

50. Not a reliable source, IMO

I'm talking transcripts of news shows, or the Federal Register, something like that. If she said it on "60 Minutes" there should be a way to prove it. Right now I still don't believe she said it.

[MrBenchley]

61. Exactly so...

Perhaps people who think Mary Rosh is a real scientist think "69 Minutes" is a real TV progrram....

[juancarlos]

104. Feinstein? Centrist?

Not with guns.

According to Handgun Control Inc, she did say that she wanted guns banned. Here are two links.

http://216.239.41.104/search?q=cache:4fvrd6Tkd4wJ:www.handguncontrolinc.org/under_fire5.htm+feinstein+%22turn+them+in%22+%22mr.+and+mrs.+america%22&hl=en&ie=UTF-8

http://www.handguncontrolinc.org/under_fire5.htm


Obviously, Feinstein is another anti-self-defense Democrat, the kind of Democrat that we don't need in our party.

[slackmaster]

6. Like most bigotry it's rooted in ignorance

Look at the responses in another threads here where contributors were challenged to identify or define "assault weapons". No gun ban enthusiast has made a serious effort to answer the questions, rather they try to hide their ignorance behind trite jokes or mantras like "Mary Rosh! Mary Rosh!" or "the corrupt gun industry".

[MrBenchley]

12. Too frigging funny....

You mean because we won't play along with the RKBA crowd's bogus "there are no assault weapons" crap?

Ri-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-i-ght.

[Fescue4u]

15. Maybe you ought to check it out

I hope you don't mind that I just used your quote.

[MrBenchley]

20. Do you really think I just fell off the turnip truck??

I've been hearing and debunking lies from the gun nut crowd since Noah was a pup. There's damn little gun rights hooey I haven't long ago gone through...and found out was bullshit.

[Fescue4u]

30. I don't know, did you?

I'll take you at your word that you've been debunking "lies"

But so far all I've seen you post is alot of one liners, cute sayings, and other cliches. If you have something substantial to say, perhaps you could post a link to it? That would help me alot.

[MrBenchley]

39. In a word, no, I've been here for a while...

and arguing this "gun rights" nonsense for quite a while...

[DoNotRefill]

93. Turnip truck? nope...

Manure wagon? Well..... ;-)

[1a2b3c]

27. There are 2 of them out of the 4 pictures

Feel free to take a wild guess.

[RoeBear]

107. At least you are honest enough to admit...

...that you want the AWB extended AND strengthened. I would be curious to know how far you would go in banning guns, or would it be easier to tell us what guns you would allow?

[Pert_UK]

34. No, you're right....

I can't identify an assault rifle from a non-assault rifle and therefore have no rights to any opinion regarding guns.

How did I miss that?

P.

[slackmaster]

48. Nice strawman argument

I... ...have no rights to any opinion regarding guns.

Interesting concept but definitely not my position.

Please try comprehending my post again, and I recommend that you read the responses in my Assault Weapon Quiz thread.

[iverglas]

9. my laugh for the day

I've observed the deepness of the paranoia streak here myself. Funny thing is, where I see it is among those who are so afraid of their fellowamericans, and the governments they elect, that they feel compelled to arm themselves against them.



Folks, we cannot pick and choose the portions of the Bill Of Rights that we like best.

Of course you can. What did you think, they came down from a mountain on stone tablets??

Somebody wrote 'em. They offered them to you, posterity and all that. You really do get to decide whether to keep 'em or not.


The Bill of Rights is a set. Take out one and it becomes unbalanced and destined for irrelevancy.

Funny how a different perspective gives different results.

Those of us in the outer fringes of the rest of the world, with very nice, newer bill-of-rights thingies, are standing quite steady, thank you. No toppling over where I'm at. Got me a Charter of Rights and Freedoms, all those guarantees of democratic rights and fundamental freedoms and equality rights and you name it, and doing just fine. Same for zillions of other people in the world. And curious though it might seem, some of us actually think we're doing much better, in point of fact, than you.

None of our bill-of-rights thingies says anything at all about guns. But mine, and the courts that interpret it, do say things like "thou shalt not deny prisoners the vote, because that is a fundamental right in a democracy and its exercise may be interfered with only for the most extremely serious of reasons".

So I, you see, look south of the border at you and feel sorry for you, all unbalanced as you obviously are. You can own all the guns you like, but huge segments of your population are, on top of being otherwise severely disadvantaged, denied their democratic right to vote. Just f'r instance.


This is my first day in the "gun dungeon" and Im shocked at the paranoia, and naiviety of the gun control zealots.

Not an attack on anyone in particular, just an observation of how far we neeed to go to educate people and weed out the bigotry.

Gosh, that's so nice; you're not attacking "anyone in particular" ... you're just making sweeping and bizarre generalizations without offering anything to support them. How too kind of you.

.

[Fescue4u]

13. Im glad to have entertained you.

Listen, you may laugh and ridicule the Bill of Rights, but frankly I hold them dear....As do millions of other Americans.

And while yes someone did write them, we have based a society upon them for the last 230 years, and despite the best attempts of some to unsurp things, things have worked out pretty well overall. Yes we have current difficultys but even these will pass.

Im not sure what country you are from, but I challenge you to find where I have ridiculed the foundations of any other country.

Yes...Yes I did make sweeping generalizations...That was the ENITRE POINT of the posting. If you want to hear specifics, ask me, or look at some of my postings.

[MrBenchley]

23. "despite the best attempts of some to unsurp things"

I guess this means John AshKKroft's attempt to change the meaning of the Second Amendment to cover individual ownership of guns...

[Pert_UK]

33. I'm not knocking the intentions of the Bill of Rights.....

but to blindly follow them (or more accurately, a particular interpretation of one of them) without allowing any possibility for them changing in accordance with the situation of the time, is bizarre.

To assume that a group of people had a direct line to timeless, infallible information 230 years ago that would NEVER need changing seems itself naive....and starkly in contrast to the freedoms that were fought for during the establishment of the USA. Did the men who debated and formed the Bill of Rights add a note saying, "No need to think for yourselves any more people, we've nailed it! Just follow this and you'll be fine, regardless of the world changing around you. Oh and by the way, don't get bogged down in any semantic difficulties, we actually did mean that part of the US constitution entails that you can have a gun if you want one".

I cannot for the life of me understand someone who says, "Well they've worked pretty well, so we better not reinterpret or change them or everything will collapse, let's just follow them regardless of what happens."

It's very, very strange........by all means defend the good intentions of the Bill of Rights, but currently you're fighting to defend your own interpretation of an historical document.

Without wishing to cause offense, it does remind me of religious fundamentalists who suggest that any interpretation of the Bible that disagrees with their own is heresy.

[Fescue4u]

49. I totally agree!

""To assume that a group of people had a direct line to timeless, infallible information 230 years ago that would NEVER need changing seems itself naive...."

Hence the consitition has a mechnism by which we may amend it.

If the 2nd ammendment is no longer deemed worthy, then we the people should amend, or revoke via the ammendment process.

Be warned however, I suspect attempts to do so, will make the party losses of 1994 look like a sunny day.

[demsrule4life]

18. The antis here never make generalizations

From our pet troll

"I certainly think that's representative of the sort of scum
who tend to own guns...."

[MrBenchley]

21. Gee, dems.....

You look silly snivelling about that...since it was the RKBA crowd that dredged up a biker gang fight as a sterling example of guns used for self defense...

[1a2b3c]

28. Gang fight?

Did you read it? It seemed to me that he supported his group that he road with by wearing a hat and the other 2 assholes thought he needed beat for supporting his club.

[MrBenchley]

40. Yeah, that IS a gang fight...

"It seemed to me that he supported his group that he road with by wearing a hat and the other 2 assholes thought he needed beat for supporting his club."

[Terran]

45. Thank you

IMO, this sacred cow status that most Americans have conferred on our founding documents is one the biggest problems we have in this country.

[Lefty48197]

17. They're coming to take our guns away

but they can't take mine, 'cause I'm Okay!

[MrBenchley]

22. I'm hiding under the bed with mine

Be vewy vewy quiet...I'm afraid Diane Feinstein is in the next room!!

[acerbic]

26. I thought it goes something like this:

"They're coming to take guns away, ha-haaa.
They're coming to take guns away, ho-ho, hee-hee, ha-haaa..."
:-)

[jody]

24. Some people are just selective about which inalienable rights to abolish.

[MrBenchley]

25. And some cling to guns like drowning men to flotsam

and run and hide when reality intrudes on their fantasies...

[Wcross]

29. 200,000,000+ guns = reality

How do you propose to cotrol the 200,000,000+ guns in circulation? Can not be done. If a gun is the most effective way to stop a deadly confrontation, why shouldn't I have one? Laws do not apply to criminals, so your efforts are to disarm the law abiding gun owner.

Thats reality sweet heart.

[MrBenchley]

41. Easy, cross...

Register those guns
License all gun owners
Require background checks on all gun sales
etc....



"If a gun is the most effective way to stop a deadly confrontation, why shouldn't I have one?"
And if the gun industry lied about that with their crackpot study.....WHICH THEY DID.

[Wcross]

54. Thank You Mr.Benchley sir.

"If a gun is the most effective way to stop a deadly confrontation, why shouldn't I have one?"
And if the gun industry lied about that with their crackpot study.....WHICH THEY DID.

I thought guns were deadly weapons? Wouldn't a fatal gunshot wound tend to stop an attacker dead in his tracks? To me, that is effective. I can only assume that someone who is attacking me is intending to kill me. I am not much of a gambler.

Thank You for admitting that you want gun registration. That shows me that your ultimate goal is confiscation. Your aim isn't to disarm criminals, it is to disarm law abiding people.

I advocate going after the criminals, project Exile would be a good start. Lock the gun runners up for life for all I care. Selling drugs while carrying- go to jail for 20+ years, regardless of your age. Try to buy a gun when you know your not allowed to, go back to jail.

I have never heard your side advocate solutions that target the problem people, just the tools they use.

[jody]

55. Wcross, there you go being logical again. Shame, Shame on You! eom

[MrBenchley]

56. Gee, cross....John Lott's study WAS a lie

paid for the gun industry...

"I advocate going after the criminals, project Exile would be a good start."
You and John AshKKKroft both say that, cross. Of course, it doesn't work, but you're in some swell company there, all right....

[RoeBear]

58. What is wrong with...

...Project Exile?

[MrBenchley]

70. Besides the FACT that AshKKKroft loves it and it doesn't work?

[Wcross]

73. Doesn't work?

It sends people that are prohibited from owning firearms to jail for ten years if caught with a firearm. What doesn't work about that?

[MrBenchley]

99. Cross.....

Go play "let's pretend" with someone dumb enough to buy AshKKKroft's rubbish.

[Lefty48197]

74. Regulate the bullets

Stop Kmart and Walmart from selling bullets to any 17 year old crack head that just stole a gun and wants to use it to rob innocent people so that he can buy more crack.
Require a permit to purchase that ammo. Regulate the sale of powder to reload the spent shell casings.

[RoeBear]

80. "Require a permit to purchase ammo."

That would be a sure way to make sure your state rep Ruth Ann Jamnick
never gets re-elected. Why don't you give her a call and see if she'd be willing to sponsor a bill like that in Michigan. I bet she hangs up on you.

[DoNotRefill]

94. Hey lefty....

while you're at it, you better regulate the sale/possession of batshit, sulphur, charcoal, cotton, matches, tire wheel weights, fishing sinkers, diving weights, old film base (nitrocellulose), and a bunch of other stuff too. They can all be used to make ammunition.

Most people don't know that if you grind up old film, it's really smokeless gunpowder. I found this out the hard way, running 1930's military training films on a Super 8 projector that broke. Projector and film go "BOOM"!

[Spentastic]

100. BULL POO

Yes all crack addicts will go to the trouble of making their own ammo.

[RoeBear]

102. So your're saying Lefty is dumb...

...for suggesting this: "Regulate the sale of powder to reload the spent shell casings."?

[Java]

37. Reality bit some of us pretty hard during the Los Angeles Riots

A lot of us were on our own for several days...Police avoided a lot of south central Los Angeles.

In dangerous times, a Gun is a Life Preserver, which can save you from drowning in a sea of violence.

I'll cling to mine, thank you very much. As for you...well..you can tread water for all I care.

[Pert_UK]

32. Not picking on you today Jody, but....

This is a flawed argument.

You're assuming that the RKBA is an inalienable right and then criticising people for trying to abolish an inalienable right.

The anti RKBA crowd disagree with your fundamental assumption.

You can't just say, "You can't abolish bearing arms because it's an inalienable right", you need to demonstrate clearly why this is the case.

IMHO, a group of people, no matter how intelligent or well-intentioned, should never be relied upon to make infallible, timeless declarations regarding the rights of human beings.

In addition, the RKBA seems to me to be totally incongruous within the set of other rights, like freedom of religion, speech, assembly etc.

You can't just say, "Well life's pretty violent and guns provide a good method of self defense" and then conclude that it's an inalienable right that will continue throughout time.

[iverglas]

35. and besides

The fact that something is (or is being called) an "inalienable" right does not mean and has never meant that the exercise of it may not be restricted or interfered with.

Jody probably says that she has an "inalienable" right to liberty. Well, yup; we'd probably agree that she may not (well, ought not to be permitted to) sell, lease, or otherwise surrender her liberty to someone else, or try to buy or rent someone else's.

But if she does something that the rest of us don't like, we can sho' 'nuff throw her behind bars. Big interference with her liberty.

We can, and in fact must, limit the exercise of rights and freedoms in whole lots of ways.

And squawking "inalienable right, inalienable right" (some people hear chihuahuas, I hear parrots) just isn't much of a contribution to the discourse about how and when and why we can do that.

So as you say, she hasn't done anything to establish her thesis that "self-defence" is an inalienable right. And the fact remains that "self-defence is an inalienable right" just makes no bleeding sense -- how do you sell or lease your self-defence?? (And if you can figure out a way of doing it, why should you be denied the opportunity?) "Inalienable" MEANS incapable of being alienated -- of being transferred, given up, etc. etc. You may not give away your life or liberty; that makes sense. You may not give away your self-defence??

But she also has never, that I'm aware of, made any effort to establish that no limitations may be placed on the exercise of that "right" (or, if she admits of any limitations, why only them) when limitations may be placed on the exercise of every single other right in the firmament of rights.

What's that I hear? Squawking? Probably not; I don't get squawked at directly these days. Must have been crickets.

.

[jody]

53. Pert_UK, consider the following facts, they are not assumptions.

Starting before the Constitution and Bill of Rights were written.

"I. That all men are born equally free and independent, and have certain natural, inherent and inalienable rights,
amongst which are, the enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing and protecting property,"
"XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;" (Pa Constitution, 28 Sept. 1776)

Today 28 states recognize an individual`s "Right to Keep and Bear Arms" (RKBA) for defense of self and state: AL, AR, CO, CT, DE, FL, IN, KY, MI, MS, MO, MT, NE, NV, NH, NM, ND, OK, OR, PA, SD, TX, UT, VT, WA, WV, WI, WY

Five states recognize an individual's RKBA for the "common defense": AR, KS, MA, OH, TN.

Eleven states say RKBA shall not be infringed": AK, GA, HI, ID, IL, LA, ME, NC, RI, SC, VA.

Six states have no RKBA provision: CA, IA, MD, MN, NJ, NY.

It is interesting that CA, IA, and NJ both acknowledge that a citizen has the inalienable right to defend self and property. State Constitutions

CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE 1 DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. All people are by nature free and independent and have inalienable rights. Among these are enjoying and defending life and liberty, acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and pursuing and obtaining safety, happiness, and privacy.
UNQUOTE

IDAHO CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I DECLARATION OF RIGHTS
SECTION 1. INALIENABLE RIGHTS OF MAN. All men are by nature free and
equal, and have certain inalienable rights, amoung which are enjoying and
defending life and liberty; acquiring, possessing and protecting property;
pursuing happiness and securing safety.
UNQUOTE

NEW JERSEY CONSTITUTION
QUOTE
ARTICLE I RIGHTS AND PRIVILEGES
All persons are by nature free and independent, and have certain natural and unalienable rights, among which are those of enjoying and defending life and liberty, of acquiring, possessing, and protecting property, and of pursuing and obtaining safety and happiness.
UNQUOTE

NINTH AMENDMENT: "The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people"

SCOTUS said in UNITED STATES v. MILLER, 307 U.S. 174 (1939)

QUOTE
Most if not all of the States have adopted provisions touching the right to keep and bear arms. Differences in the language employed in these have naturally led to somewhat variant conclusions concerning the scope of the right guaranteed. But none of them seem to afford any material support for the challenged ruling of the court below.
UNQUOTE

It is absolutely clear that in the states I cited above, citizen's have an inalienable right to defend self and property and keeping and bearing arms is the way citizens exercise that inalienable right. It is impossible for citizens to alienate an inalienable right.

IMO, people err when they start with the Second Amendment when in fact the issue of inalienable right to defend self and property predates the Second Amendment.

After Pennsylvania ratified the Second Amendment in March 1790 it adopted, barely six months later, a revised constitution on September 2, 1790 that said:

"That the right of the citizens to bear arms, in defence of themselves and the state, shall not be questioned." (Article IX section XXI)

When Pennsylvania revised its constitution in 1790, it retained the simple statement regarding an individual’s right to use arms for defense of self and state and it did so with contemporaneous knowledge of the meaning of the Second Amendment. Pennsylvania’s action occurred a few months after it ratified the Bill of Rights setting up a simple either/or condition – EITHER Pennsylvania understood its statement “the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the State” to be included in the Second Amendment OR Pennsylvania intended its statement to be an un-enumerated right protected by the Ninth Amendment which clearly states “The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.”

What SCOTUS may decide re the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that at the state level, the facts are exactly as I have stated them. That's why people like Clarence Thomas, Tony Scalia, and Laurence Tribe say that RKBA is probably a state's right issue.

[iverglas]

59. jody has a problem, Pert

And I've seen the evidence of it waaaay back.

She doesn't understand ... or won't acknowledge ... that the fact that someone -- ANYONE -- said something just doesn't make it so.

No one's claim about the existence or nature of "inalienable rights" is any more authoritative than anyone else's. It is a claim not subject to proof, no matter who has made it or what it is. It is and will always be a matter that is determined by decision, not proof.

So when you say:

You're assuming that the RKBA is an inalienable right and then criticising people for trying to abolish an inalienable right.

The anti RKBA crowd disagree with your fundamental assumption.

You can't just say, "You can't abolish bearing arms because it's an inalienable right", you need to demonstrate clearly why this is the case.

IMHO, a group of people, no matter how intelligent or well-intentioned, should never be relied upon to make infallible, timeless declarations regarding the rights of human beings.

... you will always and ever be met by jody reciting reams of somebody or other's assertions about the existence and nature of certain "inalienable rights", and no response to your absolutely correct statements about the problematic nature of any such assertions.

Jody apparently chooses to recognize certain individuals, and the laws and other documents they wrote, as "authorities" on the existence and nature of "inalienable rights". Her problem is that they aren't. There is no such thing as an authority on that question. So all she's doing is quoting someone else rather than herself or the guy at the local gas station, to pretty much the same effect. She really doesn't seem to understand this.

The pope may be an authority on the RC church's position on the morality of abortion, say, but he is not an authority on the morality of abortion.

So RCers who have chosen to recognize the pope as an authority on the morality of abortion, when there is no such thing, will cite RC dogma on the issue as their authority.

Jody, who has chosen to recognize her sources as the authority on the existence and nature of "inalienable rights", is just doing the same thing.

She has quoted you things that pre-date the US constitution (wow, ancient history indeed) as authority for her interpretation of the US constitution, for example.

Excellent. They may indeed be authority for that interpretation -- because they exist within the same bell jar as the constitution. It's a closed circuit, in which the questions you ask have already been answered for/by jody.

You are asking her to step outside that paradigm and ask (and answer) some pre-paradigm questions. She won't do it.


She says:

It is absolutely clear that in the states I cited above, citizen's have an inalienable right to defend self and property and keeping and bearing arms is the way citizens exercise that inalienable right. It is impossible for citizens to alienate an inalienable right.

Well, if we take "inalienable right" to mean "the rights of citizens of the United States that said citizens may not alienate", then jody will always be right, assuming that what she is saying is substantiated by the proper authorities, i.e. the authorities regarding what the rights of citizens of the US that they may not alienate are.

That, of course, wasn't your question.

IMO, people err when they start with the Second Amendment when in fact the issue of inalienable right to defend self and property predates the Second Amendment.

Of course, since that is written in jody's inimitable shorthand, it doesn't quite make sense; I believe that she is saying that the "existence of inalienable right to defend self and property predates the Second Amendment".

And of course she's wrong. What predates the second amendment is someone's assertion of the existence of such a right, and of the nature of the right that it is asserted exists.


She concludes with:

What SCOTUS may decide re the Second Amendment does not alter the fact that at the state level, the facts are exactly as I have stated them. That's why people like Clarence Thomas, Tony Scalia, and Laurence Tribe say that RKBA is probably a state's right issue.

Perhaps we are meant to take this as the definitive response to your statement:

IMHO, a group of people, no matter how intelligent or well-intentioned, should never be relied upon to make infallible, timeless declarations regarding the rights of human beings.

The reason you made that statement is that there ARE no such "infallible, timeless declarations regarding the rights of human beings" possible.

To think that such declarations are possible would be to believe that there is a truth somewhere just waiting to be discovered, that would then be a fact which could be infallibly and timelessly declared. There isn't. Any more than there is a fact just waiting to be discovered somewhere that will tell us how tall tall is, or whether orange is good.

Those are just things we have to keep on deciding for ourselves ...

I recommend a visit to http://www.jabberwacky.com/JTReply?B137883 if you feel yourself experiencing a burning urge to get non-answers to your questions. It's more fun.

Jody, of course, doesn't acknowledge what I write. That's a conscious decision to eschew discourse. Whether her failure to respond to what you say is deliberate or otherwise, I find myself unable to say.

.

[Lefty48197]

75. Another victim of the chihuahua alert

Pretty soon, certain posters may find themselves talking to walls. At least they won't have to be bothered by those that disagree with them. Hell they won't even have to leave the house then. They can have effective one way conversations with the walls in their own living rooms.

[DoNotRefill]

57. there are certain rights I consider to be inalienable....

the top two are the right to an abortion and the right to own guns. Just because somebody wants to do away with either of them doesn't make them any less inalienable. It just means the people trying to abolish the rights are fascist fuckwads.

[Pert_UK]

62. Well.....you're wrong and I can prove it.

"there are certain rights I consider to be inalienable"

The very concept of an "inalienable right" means that your consideration doesn't come into it. That's the point.

You describe people who want to take away inalienable rights as being "fascist fuckwads", but what you've failed to do is show why the rights are "inalienable". Just because you believe/consider them to be "inalienable" I'm afraid that doesn't make it so.

Basically, unless you can show WHY or HOW a right is inalienable, all you're doing is arguing your own opinion. I'm afraid that your assertion that a "right" is "inalienable" doesn't give your argument any special weight.

"I believe that abortion and gun ownership are rights" is indeed different from "I believe that abortion and gun ownership are inalienable rights", but the ONLY difference here is whether you believe that the right is "accidental"/granted by government or "inherent"/"inalienable". It's still your belief, not fact.

Your problem is that you are assuming that the right is inalienable - your opponents reject that claim.

People aren't trying to take away your inalienable rights, they're saying that those rights aren't inalienable.

They're not saying 2+2 doesn't equal 4, they're saying that your claim that 2+2=5 is wrong.

[Shanty Oilish]

63. Check Declaration of Independence

"We hold these truths to be self-evident...(that all men) are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable rights."
This is the philosophical premise of the Founding Fathers. Their beliefs are eminently google-able; their ideas are well and prolifically recorded.
The Declaration goes on to say, "to secure these rights, governments are instituted...deriving their just powers from the consent of the government."
The purpose of government, as they saw it and built it, was to protect those unalienable rights. It is the powers of government that are subject to the will of the people, not the unalienable rights.
You can and should explore the philosophy, but the short answer is that they believed that certain rights derive from the very definition of man. That a person is a distinct being with definite characteristics, and by reason we discern certain rights that all persons possess by virtue of being persons. That a human being is by his very nature entitled to life and liberty.
It USED to be self-evident, but in case it's not, there are innumerable sources available.

[Pert_UK]

66. No, I understand all that........

My point is that just because somebody else declared these "rights" to be "inalienable" that doesn't necessarily make it so.

I concede that the Founding Fathers found these "truths" to be "self-evident", but I'm afraid that philosophically speaking their opinion is only as valid as anyone else's.

"they believed that certain rights derive from the very definition of man"....I'm afraid you're opening up a semantic minefield here. I'm not disputing their beliefs or honorable intentions, but that doesn't make things correct in any objective way.

For example, "are endowed by their Creator" causes all sorts of problems - if you're an atheist then the whole fundamental assumption falls. I presume that you're not saying that a "Creator" must exist, because the Founding Fathers talked about one?

So......aside from arguing that the Founding Fathers didn't have the infallible authority to grant/recognise "inalienable rights" one could also argue against the interpretation that leads to the existing gun ownership laws.

[Shanty Oilish]

67. You get there by using reason.

Reason does get things correct in an objective way. Observation of man confirms that man is a conscious being with free will. There are some who'd say consciousness is a matter of opinion, and free will an illusion.
Those claims are not as valid as anyone else's.
I'd go on but I'm not sure you agree up to here! :scared:

[Pert_UK]

68. Errr................no. Not agreeing, even up to there.....

:-)

Sorry.

I spent 3 years gaining a degree in Philosophy & 2 years doing Religious Studies before that (interesting move for an atheist), and therefore have no intention of agreeing with anybody about anything.

:evilgrin:

"Observation of man confirms that man is a conscious being with free will."

Define "conscious" for me.......I just might be willing to concede that human beings are conscious, but only once I know what you mean by the term and also how you're going to use it.

"Free Will"? Free Will is a tricky one - intuitively I want to agree that we have Free Will, but on the other hand it's very hard to explain how that would work. If behaviour isn't caused in some way, then it's random/not based on anything, and random behaviour isn't free.....

But anyway........for the sake of argument, let's pretend that I agree with you....

Where are you going with this? And how can you assert "Those claims are not as valid as anyone else's. " with a straight face?

[Spentastic]

69. Well Pert

There appear to be some self evident truths on display in this particular forum.

If you believe in RKBA then your "opinions" are valid. If you do not,you're some sort of gungrabbing autobot.

Their opinions are betting than ours because if we disagree they can always gun us down.

Easy.

I'll define conscious for you.

3 pints.

[Shanty Oilish]

88. I was afraid you were going to say that

It felt really weird to be defending the concept of rights on a liberal forum.
Yes, I said that not all opinions are equally valid. To say that life is but a dream is not as valid as to say that reality is objective. To say (with a straight face) that free will is an illusion, is easy for someone with, say, a degree in philosophy, but it would still be ridiculous, an opinion without equal validity in argument with the standard opposing opinion on the matter. (Not saying you said it---I know what you said; just giving you a little reductio.)
About "define 'conscious' for me." Really, is that necessary? No. You just MIGHT be willing to concede that man possesses consciousness? Except you don't know how that works? :eyes:
You're playing the definition-to-death game. I'll save us the time. If we can't agree on such basics as the phenomena of consciousness and free will, we will never get to any reasonable dialogue about rights.
"By analyzing too minutely we often reduce our subject to atoms, of which the mind loses its hold." --Thomas Jefferson

The modern study of philosophy teaches one how to doubt, but not how to know. Are you sure you're not an agnostic?

[Pert_UK]

90. I think that I conceded your points, at least for the sake of argument

I appreciate that I was going a little bit far in my examination of the minute elements of everything. But I had my reasons....

1. I'm not really attacking the concept of "rights". I'm attacking a supposedly innate, inalienable "right" with a divine source. So far I haven't really attacked the content of the right at all, in fact I've repeated said that the pro-RKBA people need to focus on the content of the right (and its consequences) rather than merely re-stating a supposedly infallible base for it.

2. OK, stepping outside my ludicrous philosophical world and talking like a normal person......OK, yes, the world exists, there is some level of objectivity around (we're not all dreaming existence) etc. That still doesn't detract from the point that nobody I've ever read has given a reasonable explanation of how Free Will works. However, I will concede the concept of Free Will (for the moment) and also the concept of consciousness (whatever that is). But that doesn't mean I'm going to let you interpret them however you want (for example, consciousness does not entail "soul" or an immaterial concept of "mind") and then win an argument based on that interpretation alone.

Of course by now I've forgotten what we were arguing about....

So having conceded these major points (temporarily) I'd like to see where you go from here, if you have the time.

[DoNotRefill]

95. Ummm....inalienable rights don't necessarily come from a divine source.

I'm agnostic, and still have inalienable rights (we may not agree on the exact content of those rights, but they still exist). They don't come from some God, they come from my status as a human being.

[jody]

101. I understand your point, but in 1776 context , what is the source of

rights in the following statement?

QUOTE
We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
UNQUOTE

You state that rights come from your "status as a human being", but isn't that subject to definition by the majority of society or the tyranny of an unelected government?

Whatever ones beliefs from atheist to religious fanatic, isn't there value in establishing certain rights that are outside the ever changing government process? Even then, should a simple majority of society define and redefine those special rights or would a super majority be more appropriate?

I believe the "inalienable rights" recognized in the founding documents of the US, regardless of their source, are valuable checks on government. Without them, AWOL, Asscroft, and their friends would have made more progress in destroying what few freedoms we have left.

[jody]

71. Pert, where is your proof? The concept of natural or inalienable rights

starts with an assumption that there is a creator and such rights are granted by that creator. Given a creator, we can then discuss what rights did that creator grant to humans.

In the beginning of this country, some but not all states believe the issue was important enought to list in their constitution and they did that, see relevant documents at "Chronology of American History" That difference of opinion continued through out the Constitutional debates and was finally settled by adding the Bill of Rights to the constitution, The founders were concerned because the BOR was not an exhaustive list so they added the Ninth Amendment to protect unenumerated rights.

In “The Rights of the Colonists”, Nov. 20, 1772, Samuel Adams, a principle member of the founders, discussed the “Natural Rights of the Colonists as Men” and captured the concept of “unalienable” when he wrote:
QUOTE
In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave. (emphasis added)
UNQUOTE

I don't know how an atheist would logically defend "natural or inalienable rights" since they don't believe in a creator.

[iverglas]

72. what fun

Like you, Pert (I know jody ain't reading, har har), I spent my early academic years in the study of philosophy, and got a bit of paper to prove it.

"Pert, where is your proof? The concept of natural or inalienable rights
starts with an assumption that there is a creator and such rights are granted by that creator. Given a creator, we can then discuss what rights did that creator grant to humans."

(What were you stating that required proof, Pert? I've lost track ...)

Yup, given that assumption, we shore 'nuff could "discuss what rights did that creator grant to humans" ... just as we can discuss how many angels can dance on the point of a very fine needle without jostling one another. And if we assumed an invisible pink unicorn, we could discuss what fruit she prefers us to offer her. (And if we first assumed a can-opener, we could eat those beans. Perhaps jody's an economist at heart.) Some people find such discussions fruitful.

And then we go back to her perennial and persistent petitio principi ... begging the question (draftcaroline is doing it too, of course), by citing authority for her claims that is no more than a reiteration of her claim:

In short, it is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or any number of men, at the entering into society, to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights; when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are Life, Liberty, and Property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up any essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right to freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.

All ya gotta say is "nope". The "right to freedom" is NOT "the gift of God Almighty". Try again. Even without saying that there is no "God Almighty", you can still say that any statement of what it does and intends is still just one person's opinion. (I don't know that I would even dignify it by calling it an "opinion". Any presumption to know what a "God Almighty" wants must surely be correctly called a delusion.)

Jody says: "I don't know how an atheist would logically defend 'natural or inalienable rights' since they don't believe in a creator."

Her problem here is that she also doesn't know how a theist would logically defend "natural or inalienable rights", since she has no clue about what or who this "creator" is, or what s/he/it may have given anyone. As demonstrated by her complete failure to establish that there are such "natural or inalienable rights", let alone what they might be.

She continues to appeal to OTHER PEOPLE's claims in this regard, as if they were PROOF of what they were saying. Argument ex cathedra, in this instance. An appeal to "authority" -- and in this case the "authority" appealed to is NOT an authority.

NO ONE is an authority on the nature of rights, in any sense other than authority on the nature of rights as matters of consensus, in which case there are indeed authorities on what that consensus is, that being something capable of proof.

Jody's authorities based their theories on such a poor and incomplete knowledge of the relevant facts, and on such strong self-interest and disregard for others' interests, that they are both unreliable sources as reporters of fact and undesirable models for our own decision-making. I ain't gonna base my theories on 18th century science, or on the prescriptions given by an 18th century rich white guy.

On the facts, the whole "man in a state of nature" model relied on by these authorities of hers is, and is known by us to be, such complete bullshit that it is painful to see someone citing it as she does.

People do not "enter into society", they are born into it. Human beings simply do not exist in the absence of human groups. The family is the human group writ small, and people, at the most microcosmic level, exist in families. It is of our essence to do this. We are that way, and we do that way. A baby raised by wolves would not be "man in a state of nature", it would be a person deprived of its human existence.

People do love absolutes, and many simply can't cope with the fact that even if there are such absolutes (like that creator thingy), we will never know what they are. Anybody's guess is absolutely as good as anybody else's. Or as bad.

Even if what the absolute is, if we could discover it, is simply "that which is hardwired into us by evolution" (or hell, by "the creator"), we can't discover it. Not now.

We are left working with what we do know, and deciding what to do about it.

And damned if that isn't freedom, and if what jody's trying to do isn't take it away from us.

Jody wants us all to accept her theories, and the policies she advocates as being allegedly based on them. She can't prove that her theories are fact, that there is some first principle that we must all start with and derive our policies from (base our actions on).

Actually, she can't even offer a reason why we should base our policies/actions on her theories if she could prove that they were fact: why would *I* care what "the creator" wanted me to do?? Why would "the creator says so" be a conclusive answer to "why should we allow unrestricted access to firearms"?? All I need to say is: who cares?

Human beings exist in human groups. Human beings are part of human groups. Human beings and human groups constantly have to decide on courses of action, both as individuals and as a group. And what *is* inherent in human beings, we know for a fact, is that when we do that, we consider the potential consequences both for ourselves and for others. It is in our nature to want to perpetuate both our own existence and our species' existence.

Our big flaw is that we cannot predict the future. We can't know whether Action "X" will benefit us individually and harm our group, or harm us individually and benefit the group, or benefit both, or harm both. We make semi-educated guesses. And we are not often rational, even then. We have "reasons" for doing irrational things, all of which are also part of being human: we rationalize, just for starters.

Me, I have no intention of renouncing my freedom in favour of jody's primitive staightjacket. Some of what she and her "authorities" have to say is undoubtedly worth considering. Some of it is crap. We really do all get to make up our own minds. There is no authority, whether or not her "creator" exists. She's really in the same quandary as all us atheists out here. Unless that creator really does talk to her, in plain English ... and she can prove it, and make me care about what it says.

Until then, I expect people to discuss the courses of action they propose by appealing to something that is provable: what we do know of "human nature", and what human consensus about the principles that should be followed that we can identify. Without dragging the gods and masters into it.

For Pert, some low humour:

http://pvspade.com/Sartre/cookbook.html

.

[Pert_UK]

76. But that's the problem, isn't it.....

Iverglas has already done a comprehensive (and very interesting) reply on this, but I'll try to keep it nice and brief.

You're basically saying:

"there is a creator and inalienable or natural rights were granted by that creator" and then asking me to prove that this isn't correct......

Now, here's the thing.......(Firstly, it's almost impossible to prove that something DOESN'T exist, but that's neither here nor there). The problem is that it's not down to me to prove anything.....YOU have claimed:

1. the existence of a "creator"
2. that this "creator" gave human beings rights
3. these rights would be "natural and inalienable" and
4. human beings therefore have natural and inalienable rights.

Firstly, whilst I respect the beliefs of many people from a variety of religions, I don't share any of them. I'm afraid that if you're going to rely on the existence of God for your argument you better prove his/her/its existence first.

Secondly, even if there is/was (and always shall be) a "creator", that doesn't mean that they gave human beings anything over and above physical form. You can't just assume that natural/inalienable rights were granted by the Creator.

Thirdly, you need to explain to me why any rights granted by the Creator automatically become inalienable - maybe the Creator decided to grant temporary rights?

Basically, Jody, you can't just assume the existence of God and then make conclusions based on it. People have been trying to do that for hundreds if not thousands of years, and nobody has actually succeeded...

As far as I can tell, the ONLY way of proving your assertion is if you are able to produce a signed note from God saying that man has natural and inalienable rights.

"I don't know how an atheist would logically defend "natural or inalienable rights" since they don't believe in a creator. "

Well actually they could try all sorts of different methods, many of which would be more compelling than your own argument, precisely BECAUSE they don't have to rely on the existence of God as a starting point.

You're claiming the existence of a load of things that I don't believe in and then criticising my position for not being able to prove that they DON'T exist. I'm not claiming anything, except that you need to offer some proof of these "objective" rights, which you haven't managed so far.

[jody]

77. Pert, your problem is not with me, but with the founders of this country.

I merely stated the facts and gave you links to back them up. As to Iverglas, I'm sure he or she sometimes makes a good point, but I put him or her on ignore a long time ago for many reasons.

What might be acceptable in the UK or Canada or another country regarding "inalienable rights" doesn't concern me. The fact is that the founders of the US did recognize a Creator in the Declaration of Independence and stated in state constitutions that each citizen had certain "inalienable rights" and those rights were excepted out of the general role of state governments. For example, Kentucky's constitution says in its Bill of Rights "To guard against transgression of the high powers which we have delegated, We Declare that every thing in this Bill of Rights is excepted out of the general powers of government, and shall forever remain inviolate; and all laws contrary thereto, or contrary to this Constitution, shall be void." I believe that's a perfectly clear statement.

In Kentucky and Alabama, neither the state nor federal government can infringe upon those rights. That's why we created our own sovereign government in 1776. Our rights do not come from a King/Queen/Emperor/Dictator etc. and our inalieable rights are off limits to government. That logic protects not just RKBA but all inalienable rights. People who don't like that may as well get used to living with that simple fact.

P.S. I hope some athetist will contribute a useful explanation for the source of "inalienable rights" other than the creator cited in the Declaration of Independence and contemporaneous debate.

[Pert_UK]

78. Some good points but my objection still stands.....

I'm not talking about any country-specific terms or laws here.

I don't care whether it's you or the Founding Fathers who are positing the existence of a Creator and then basing arguments on that existence. I don't agree that this "Creator" exists in any meaningful way, and I don't believe that it makes sense to suggest that a Creator endowed men with inalienable rights.

My point is that OK, legally speaking maybe US citizens are granted rights that cannot be taken away.......but that doesn't mean that:

- they come from God
- are innate or inalienable
- are actually still appropriate in the 21st century

If God doesn't exist then the Founding Father's declarations were based on a fallacy and erroneous logic. Although legally these "rights" may be recognised as "inalienable" that doesn't give them some magical, untouchable nature.

It puzzles me that the defense is "This right is inalienable because the Invisible Cloud Being gave it to men during the time of creation" rather than "This is a right because it's a sensible, good, useful, moral, democratic thing to have."

Invisible Cloud Being is a Bartcop term, just in case you were wondering.

[jody]

79. Depending on the poll, 86% to 95% of Americans believe in God

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-srv/politics/polls/wat/archive/wat042400.htm

QUOTE
Overall, the center's survey of surveys confirms that America truly is one nation, under God—or at least Americans say it is. In survey after survey, overwhelming majorities say they believe in God. More than nine in 10 Americans—95 percent—told ABC News polltakers that they believe in God. A Gallup Organization survey for CNN and USA Today last December found much the same thing: Nearly nine in 10—86 percent—said they believed in God, while another 8 percent said they believe in some form of "Universal spirit or higher power."
UNQUOTE

http://www.ipsos-reid.com/media/dsp_displaypr_cdn.cfm?id_to_view=1019
QUOTE
Toronto, ON – The results of an Angus Reid/CTV/Globe and Mail survey released today show that greater than eight in ten (84%) Canadians say they believe in God.
UNQUOTE

http://www.bbc.co.uk/pressoffice/pressreleases/stories/2003/09_september/07/heaven_earth_poll.shtml
QUOTE
Whilst 60% of {UK} people believe in God, only 18% are practising members of a religion.
UNQUOTE

[Pert_UK]

84. Did you just try to prove the existence of God using statistics???

Do you have any idea how odd that is?

70% of Americans believe that Saddam was directly involved in the 9/11 attacks........over 50% reckon that Bush is doing a good job.

Need I say more?

Well OK then......how about asking those people exactly what they believe in - if more than a handful are able to provide a coherent, internally consistent and reasonable explanation of what they mean by "God" I'd be surprised.

How many people also believe in "magic"? 400 years ago most people believed in unicorns, so did they exist then but not now?

What happens if next year there's an about turn, and for some reason only 25% of Americans still believe in God - is his 45% less existent?

How many of those people who believe in "God" believe that God gave man inalienable rights? And how can you prove it?

Look - I'm not saying "I'm right and you're wrong" but what I am saying is that if you want to claim some sort of divine, infallible basis for your opinions then you ought to be able to prove it. I can defend my views without recourse to a putative deity.

Another thing to consider is that it's just plain weird to say "This is right because God says so" rather than "This is right because it results in a positive outcome".

[jody]

85. Come on Pert, you know I wouldn't do that. What the stats show is that

perhaps 90% of US citizens will accept the statement that "inalienable rights" are gifts from a Creator. You obviously don't agree, but that's just the way it is in the US. Their belief underlies every branch of our government and that's why the majority of our senators and congresspersons claim to be God fearing citizens.

I don't need to prove that God exists, I only need to prove that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that God exists. I've done that and that supports the concept of "inalienable rights" being a gift of a Creator. Someday that will probably change, but that's the way it is today.

[Pert_UK]

86. So then......

If God exists and gave rights to man then man has inalienable rights.

But what if God doesn't exist?

"I don't need to prove that God exists, I only need to prove that the overwhelming majority of Americans believe that God exists."

Well actually, yes you do.....

I'm not interested in whether the majority of Americans believe that God granted inalienable rights to man, I'm interested in whether God granted inalienable rights to man.

If something is only an inalienable right because the people believe it is an inalienable right, then it's not an inalienable right.

A=A, If A=B & B=C then A=C, all bachelors are unmarried men, all dogs are mammals.......these things are all true regardless of beliefs. Some are logical truths, others are true by virtue of their definition. Your "inalienable right" depends on beliefs, and therefore doesn't meet its own defining criteria.

And I'll say it again.....

Why do you (not just you personally, Jody) insist on retreating to the position of "God said it, therefore it's correct" rather than looking at something itself and trying to determine whether it is right/correct or not?

I am genuinely alarmed that people want me to take God's word, or the words of men who died many years ago, as infallible, universal truth that remains unquestionable throughout eternity.

Why not defend the content, rather than the source?

Moreover, given that the majority of US citizens can simultaneously believe that God exists and that Saddam Hussein was responsible for 9/11, or that the German population of WWII could simultaneously believe in the good, Christian God whilst condoning the holocaust, only convinces me further that belief in God is no guarantee of either right or righteous behaviour.

[jody]

87. I'm not a theologian, but I've read and studied more theology than

most and I finally found a short book that mirrored my dilemna. "The Ruins: or, Meditation on the Revolutions of Empires; and The Law of Nature".

I recommend you print it out and read it. I'll be very disappointed if you don't find it interesting.

You ask "Why not defend the content, rather than the source?"

We both know the answer, because there is no known scientific experiment that would either prove or disprove the existence of God.

Blaise Pascal wrote an intriguing little note "Pascal's Wager" that suggests that one will believe in God because the alternative of an eternity in hell makes believing in God the rational choice. I believe many people instinctively follow Pascal's Wager and ministers take advantage of their fear of eternal hell.

W.C. Fields was an outspoken athetist. Supposedly a short time before he died, a friend found Fields reading a Bible. His friend asked what he was doing, Fields replied "I'm looking for a loophole".

I've got to get some sleep.

Have a nice vacation on the farm. Glad you decided to take time to smell the wildflowers, watch the birds prepare for winter, and chase a few mosquitoes.
:hi:


P.S. on reflection, I believe I strayed far afield from your post to which I am replying. Oh well, we'll continue when you get back and I'll try to do better.

[Pert_UK]

89. And another guy whose name I forget....

was asked, on his deathbed, to renounce the devil...

"This is no time to be making enemies", was the reply. Opinions seem to vary between Machiavelli and Voltaire on that, but I like it.

:evilgrin:

I understand Pascal's Wager, but the insincere worship of God as a "least negative impact" option seems a little bit suspect to me! Rational self-interest is wholly different from genuine belief!

Anyway, I digress as well.

By the way - "watch the birds prepare for winter"??? Not in Australia mate......Summer is coming!!! WOOOOOOO!

P.

[iverglas]

98. talking to those walls

The suggestion was made that this is what the ignore-button pressers will end up doing when they have eventually ignored everyone else out of their little universe ... but it's really what talking to this one amounts to.

You ask "Why not defend the content, rather than the source?"

We both know the answer, because there is no known scientific experiment that would either prove or disprove the existence of God.

No indication of any comprehension of the issue, even this late in the game.

Why not defend the claim that there are "inalienable" rights -- that they exist and that they consist of "x, y, and z" -- rather than defending the claim that the alleged rights are derived from some particular source?

THAT was the question.

Perhaps jody's god knows what question she was answering. I don't have a clue, that's fer shure.

.

(edited to add omitted word)

[iverglas]

97. now that's downright fascinating

An appeal to the authority of public opinion to settle the issue of whether a god exists??

And still the question remains unanswered!

Unless we go by the majority rule principle, of course: 95% in the US, 84% in Canada, 60% in the UK, say "yes". (That US figure for non-believers is about half what I have read. I had no idea that the UK was so much more advanced than Canada in this respect. The Angus-Reid figure for Canada mirrors 2001 census results, in which 16% of Canadians reported having "no religion".)

Seems to me kinda like taking a poll on the question "is it raining?" and determining whether it is raining by adding up the yes and no answers ... rather than looking out the window.

I wonder whether we could conclude that a god almost definitely exists in the US, but its existence in the UK is much more doubtful. Just as we might find that it is much more likely to be raining in the UK, if we took a poll on that.

I do think, though, that we should eschew these national idiosyncracies when taking our poll, and look for the whole of public opinion ... at least what it happens to be this morning ... and make sure to include, oh, China. Wonder what the results would be for the entire human race today if we did that.

But of course, sigh, no amount of opinion on something that is a matter of fact affects the fact itself. Despite the apparent opinion of so many USAmericans to the contrary (and that very glorification of opinion, and the having one, may be much of our problem here). Either OJ killed Nicole or he didn't; no one's opinion, including the jury's, changes what happened.

Jody just seems to be full to bursting with bits of fact that have nothing to do with anything, but have to be dragged around and thrust at the assembled multitudes for some reason. If only she would occasionally construct some sort of argument, using those facts, that amounted to something.

It's ever so interesting to know how many people believe in a god. What does that tell us about whether the god exists, or what endowments it has made, or what prescriptions it has imparted, or what anybody knows about any of that, or whether any of that should be used as a basis for laws in human societies?

Nada, of course.

People who believe that a god exists, and made endowments and imparted prescriptions, and who think that they know what those endowments and prescriptions are, might indeed decide that the endowments and prescriptions they believe to have come from a god should be used as a basis for laws in human societies. Indeed, 95% of USAmericans might believe that.

It's still just an opinion, and still as subject to challenge as any other opinion. And the challenge is *not* answered by saying "because".


More low humour for Pert, from my undergrad days all those moons ago, that I'm sure he'll have heard a thousand times ... and that this site says is an urban legend of course:
http://www.everything2.com/index.pl?node=Why%3F

In a first year philosophy course, the prof has covered
all the bases: Plato, Aristotle, the basic questions that
philosophy tries to answer, etc. Students prepare for the
exam by studying lecture notes. Mind you, this exam is like
70 per cent of their final grade.

They arrive at the exam. They turn over their papers. There
is one question on the sheet: "Why?"

Some people darn near went insane that day. I like the
professor's style, though. The person who wrote "Because"
got a B, and the person who wrote "Why not?" got an A.


.

[thetoolshed]

103. Natural rights..

.. are those independent from government. It is pointless to discuss where they come from, because no one really knows, and the whole thing is basically just a giant experiment in mental masturbation.

Anyway, think of a world without any government, and think of what rights the inhabitants of the world would have. What would be included in these rights is open to interpretation though.

That said, I think the right innumerated in the 2nd is a good thing to have, because self defense is something I see as a natural right. I'm not going to get into the whole relativistic debate, because some thing are plain right and wrong IMO, although there is plenty of grey areas too..

[Pert_UK]

31. Hope you're not including me in that....

I'm not "Anti Bill of Rights" - I don't know enough about it to be for or against, really. To be honest I think you are fooling yourself if you believe that failing to agree that the 2nd Amendment means what you say it means = Anti Bill of Rights. That's a little too convenient for you.

Am I against a "Holy of Holies" untouchable document that cannot be amended 100s of years after it was written, regardless of changing circumstances? Yes, I probably am against that philosophy. But do I disagree with the freedom of worship, speech etc. contained in the Bill of Rights? Nope.

Am I a "gun control zealot"??? Difficult one.......I don't think that I can be because I've never made any real proposals regarding what to do about the gun situation in the US. I think that there's something wrong, and it needs addressing, but I don't know how and I do concede that the UK model wouldn't work in the US.

So why am I here and whose side am I on?

My background is that I took a Philosophy Degree at University, mainly because I love a good discussion/argument. I have some background in guns, in that I was obsessed by them as a child and used to shoot air-rifles in the local gun club and read every book on the history of weapons that I could find. I regret that I am not allowed to join a pistol club in the UK, but don't perceive it as an infringement of my liberties - everything is a mixture of balance, and I am happy that my society has declared that handguns are not a suitable object for ownership by the general public. I honestly believe that the UK is safer without widespread legal gun ownership. If criminals start an armed takeover, I'll change my mind, but at the moment I'm happy.

The reason that I come across as being "anti RKBA" sometimes is because what I try to do here is attack examples of bad logic, misuse of statistics and unjustifiable conclusions drawn from evidence, as well as out-and-out nonsense. Unfortunately, I tend to find more "bad arguments" from the pro side than from the anti, so I am nominally counted in the "anti" camp.

I do post stories for discussion and enlightenment (ha ha) and I often tend to draw the conclusion that a gun made the situation worse.

I always concede when I am wrong, I shy away from personal abuse, I try to see all sides of the debate and I acknowledge when my own arguments are weak.

It concerns me that in their passion to retain the RKBA the "pro" side on here often won't acknowledge even the most obvious points, and seem to assume that any suggestion that there are any problems around the legal possession of guns as it stands in the US today. It also concerns me that some "anti" RKBA people don't always debate their position as fairly as possible or give ground when they should.

[Shanty Oilish]

64. Thanks Pert!

"I always concede when I am wrong, I shy away from personal abuse, I try to see all sides of the debate and I acknowledge when my own arguments are weak."

You are indeed fair and civil and tolerant, all a good liberal should be. Reasonable people may differ---and when they do they're grateful to have reasonable opponents like you. :thumbsup:

[thetoolshed]

105. It can be though..

The BoR can be amended, it is just hard as hell, and no one has even really suggested amended it really.

I would much prefer that the anti gunners just come out and do what they are trying to do the legal way, instead of trying to backdoor in all kinds of stuff using false interpretations and sneaky wording. If they would be intellectually honest about what they are trying to do, people wouldn't hate them nearly as much. Although I still wouldn't agree with them.

Granted, it would be really hard to get any amendment to the BoR passed, but it should be that way. Using false interpretations of the language, which weakens the whole document, is not the right way to go about doing this..

[ogminlo]

106. Paranoia is the pet of the GUN NUTS

It is the fear of pretty much everything that drives the GUN NUT rabidity to fortify their homes with high-power weaponry. Take your pick- fear of imaginary crime, boogeymen, aliens, terrorists, whatever. The paranoid folks are the ones hording guns to "protect them and theirs".

No one is trying to invade your home you paranoid suburbanites!

[jody]

108. Are military and poice personnel "paranoid" or "realists" because they

use firearms?

SCOTUS has ruled that government protection is a "collective right", see

QUOTE
A State's failure to protect an individual against private violence generally does not constitute a violation of the Due Process Clause, because the Clause imposes no duty on the State to provide members of the general public with adequate protective services.
UNQUOTE

It is irrefutable that individuals need protection from criminals and they must rely on their own resources for self-defense.

What tools do you propose that law-abiding citizens use to exercise their inalienable right to defend themselves against criminals armed with handguns and long guns?

[demsrule4life]

109. This is a hoot

Every day the anti's say America has the highest crime rate in the western world but you say that is imaginary.

I have never heard a progunner say they own guns because of aliens so I guess that is your problem.

I think it is upwards of 2,000,000 houses are broken into a year that is not imaginary, one good thing is less occuipied homes are broken into in the states compared to England since the boogeymen know they stand a better chance of getting shot in the states.

I guess 9/11 and 3000 dead is imaginary

[hijinks]

112. I once shot down...

... a ufo.

My .50cal sniper rifle protects me from them very well.

:smoke:

[RoeBear]

110. Is it paranoid...

...to wear a seat belt...for self protection?

Is it paranoid to keep a fire extinguisher...for self protection?

Why is it paranoid to keep a gun.... for self protection?

[slackmaster]

111. Sometimes a gun collection is just a gun collection

No one is trying to invade your home you paranoid suburbanites!

Probably not, but some are trying to attack my gun collection.

[otohara]

113. Locking

Another thread that appears to have run it's course - two days without new posts.

Otohara - DU moderator