7th Circuit Approves Warrentless Gun Seizures

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
61

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

The exact same reasoning is used by women who support the right to abort. And since you don’t support abortion, all you’re left doing is trying to justify why one murder is okay and another is not. Is that for you to decide, when the killing of someone is okay and when it isn’t? How fucking pompous of you.[/quote]

The difference is the aborted human doesn’t get a say in the matter. The person committing suicide has absolute say in the matter. If the state has been given the right to kill someone, why doesn’t a person have the same right in re himself?

62

Not to mention in WY there is no penalty for attempted suicide, other than a 72 hr committal period in a mental institution, whereas the penalty for attempted homicide is the same as if the act was successful. Should people who botch suicides be jailed?

63

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:

[quote]DBCooper wrote:

[quote]cwill1973 wrote:
My question is thus: Does the government have the right to forcibly prevent you from taking your own life? If so, the idea that we are free men is null.[/quote]

Is suicide a right that you even have to begin with? No. So your point is moot.

I wonder if you would apply the same line of logic to gay marriage. If the gov’t can forcibly determine who gays can and cannot marry (i.e. forcibly barring gay marriage), is the idea of free men null?[/quote]

That’s a strange stance since you believe a woman has the right to kill the unborn human inside her belly. If she can do that, why can’t she freely choose to end her own life? Does society have absolute ownership of your being?
[/quote]

Actually, I do not support the right to abort an unborn child. Stop making rash generalizations about me to fortify your argument. You’re failing miserably at it.

I am asking YOU why you seem to think that you have absolute ownership of your body. The state, as determined by Justice Rehnquist in “Washington v. Glucksberg”, has a certain interest in preserving the lives of its citizens.

English common law, amongst other legal precedents, has always punished attempted suicide in some manner. At one point, people who committed suicide had all their property confiscated.

So you have never had absolute ownership of your body, ever. And the ability to commit suicide has NEVER been considered a necessary component of liberty. Stop being such a child about it.[/quote]

I thought I remembered you arguing in favor of abortion in different postings. If you haven’t, I apologize. I simply asked peoples opinions on the matter and previously stated I have not firmly decided where I stand on the issue. Why are your panties in such a bunch?
[/quote]

You are not remembering incorrectly. You simply assume that since I have views contrary to yours I must be a bleeding heart liberal in every sense of the word. I am not. Despite what you may think, I can actually straddle both sides of the aisle.

My “panties are in a bunch” because I think it is absolutely ridiculous for you to even insinuate that we are not free men because we don’t have the right to kill ourselves. It’s a childish argument, sort of like it’s not a free country because you aren’t free to do whatever you want. It’s even more childish, immature, and poorly thought out given your stance on gay marriage.

Yeah, the right to blow one’s brains out is a fundamental aspect of liberty, but the ability to marry whatever consenting adult is willing to spend the rest of their lives with you is not. Glad to see you have your priorities regarding liberty all sorted out.[/quote]

If I harm no one but myself why shouldn’t I be free to do what I want? Your comparing this topic to doing anything I want regardless of who gets hurt is a childish and poorly thought out comparison. If we don’t have the right to control our own bodies, what rights do we have? Did the government grant us our life?
[/quote]

The exact same reasoning is used by women who support the right to abort. And since you don’t support abortion, all you’re left doing is trying to justify why one murder is okay and another is not. Is that for you to decide, when the killing of someone is okay and when it isn’t? How fucking pompous of you.[/quote]

The difference is the aborted human doesn’t get a say in the matter. The person committing suicide has absolute say in the matter. If the state has been given the right to kill someone, why doesn’t a person have the same right in re himself?
[/quote]

Ah, but the state has a say in the matter re: suicide as well. And their say is that you do not have this right, which has been established throughout centuries of legal precedent and tradition. I refer you back toward Rehnquist’s writings on the matter in Washington v. Glucksberg.

The state has the “right” to kill someone. Are you arguing that we should have the same right, to kill someone? If the state were exercising its “right” to kill itself, you might have an analogous situation. According to your line of logic, since the state can kill people, you get to do the same?

And again, the reason we don’t have the right to kill ourselves is because it has never been considered anything close to a fundamental aspect of liberty within any of the previous legal traditions that our laws are based upon. There is no precedent for this right within the legal traditions that shape the Constitution. THAT is why you don’t have that right.

64

The assault against abortion is ironic considering its opponents are also opposed to welfare.

65

[quote]Bismark wrote:
The assault against abortion is ironic considering its opponents are also opposed to welfare. [/quote]

Wanting parasitic welfare bums to work for a living is tantamount to murdering babies…yeah that makes sense.

66

Embryos are not sentient beings. If abortion was universally and effectively prohibited, the need for social welfare would swell prodigiously. Do the ends justify the means? I think so.

67

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Embryos are not sentient beings.

[/quote]

Most abortions aren’t performed during the embryonic stage.

[quote]

If abortion was universally and effectively prohibited, the need for social welfare would swell prodigiously. Do the ends justify the means? I think so.[/quote]

There is no “need” for massive social welfare programs.

68

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
Embryos are not sentient beings.

[/quote]

Most abortions aren’t performed during the embryonic stage.

Well, that was poor wording on my part. I draw the line at sentience. My moral disgust toward the act of abortion doesn’t impair my objective belief that the greater good is being served by increasing the resources available to those entering society. More resources=improved individual capacity=improved society.

Perhaps, but the economic and social repercussions would be more pronounced in their absence.

69

[quote]JR249 wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
This line f reasoning can be cogently applied to abortion.[/quote],

Personally, I think abortion is a poor analogy to use in such an example. The line of reasoning is only valid insofar as the right of the woman to choose what to do with her own body, but the pro-life crowd predicates its arguments on the belief that a human has a right to life at some point post-conception (where and when the right to “life” begins is another debate), while said right to life is coterminous with a point in time whereby it is legally permissible to terminate the pregnancy on the part of the mother.

Consequently, allowing the mother to do as she wishes with her own body conflicts with the right of the unborn to life, so in granting that pro-choice argument some form of legitimacy, whether or not we agree with it, there would be another person affected.
[/quote]

Bingo. I do not think that it can be as easily applied to pro-choice positions precisely because of this. Rights are negative, i.e. in layman’s parlance (since I am certainly no lawyer) my rights end where your body begins. The entire idea of pro-choice defines it that at some point I (as a theoretical woman) have rights to control YOUR body. The point at which this occurs is up for debate of course but it is still the same. Suicide affects only yourself and as such falls squarely into “negative rights” territory.

70

[quote]Bismark wrote:
My moral disgust toward the act of abortion doesn’t impair my objective belief that the greater good is being served by increasing the resources available to those entering society. [/quote]

lol, I wonder if the people flipping the switch on gas chambers rationalized their behavior in the same way.

I know this is wrong, but you know, the “greater good”.

lmao…

71

The greater good is also highly opinionated.

72

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The greater good is also highly opinionated. [/quote]

I’m not sure on what planet murdering someone that is defenseless = greater good.

73

The reproductive organs are not sentient beings. If sterilization was universally and effectively forced upon those without the means to provide for offspring, the number of those in need of social welfare would decrease dramatically. Do the ends justify the means?

*Ignore the fact that the ends can’t justify the means.

74

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The greater good is also highly opinionated. [/quote]

I’m not sure on what planet murdering someone that is defenseless = greater good. [/quote]

When the organism in question becomes sentient, it then becomes a person. That’s where I draw the line.

75

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:
My moral disgust toward the act of abortion doesn’t impair my objective belief that the greater good is being served by increasing the resources available to those entering society. [/quote]

lol, I wonder if the people flipping the switch on gas chambers rationalized their behavior in the same way.

I know this is wrong, but you know, the “greater good”.

lmao… [/quote]

So poor, impoverished people should have free reign to reproduce with abandon, increasingly straining the earth’s carrying capacity to the point it endangers the survival and well being of societies more generally?

76

[quote]NickViar wrote:
The reproductive organs are not sentient beings. If sterilization was universally and effectively forced upon those without the means to provide for offspring, the number of those in need of social welfare would decrease dramatically. Do the ends justify the means?

*Ignore the fact that the ends can’t justify the means. [/quote]

They are organs belonging to sentient beings, not separate entities possessing agency.

I’m a consequentialism and political realist, so I believe that generally speaking, the ends do justify the means. Bad things must often be done for dry good reasons. Largely, morality and politics should not exist in the same realm.

77

[quote]Bismark wrote:

So poor, impoverished people should have free reign to reproduce with abandon, increasingly straining the earth’s carrying capacity to the point it endangers the survival and well being of societies more generally? [/quote]

lol, yes. People should be free.

Freedom includes the ability to have sex if they so choose.

You know, people have been doing the “overpopulation” freak out for quite a long time now… Sure you want to ride that train?

78

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

So poor, impoverished people should have free reign to reproduce with abandon, increasingly straining the earth’s carrying capacity to the point it endangers the survival and well being of societies more generally? [/quote]

lol, yes. People should be free.

Freedom includes the ability to have sex if they so choose.

You know, people have been doing the “overpopulation” freak out for quite a long time now… Sure you want to ride that train?
[/quote]

Free to carry out actions that are harmful to their societies and the human community as a whole?

Sex does not necessarily entail reproduction.

Are you denying the validity of the concept of carrying capacity? Human population increases can go unchecked with no negative repercussions?

79

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

So poor, impoverished people should have free reign to reproduce with abandon, increasingly straining the earth’s carrying capacity to the point it endangers the survival and well being of societies more generally? [/quote]

lol, yes. People should be free.

Freedom includes the ability to have sex if they so choose.

You know, people have been doing the “overpopulation” freak out for quite a long time now… Sure you want to ride that train?
[/quote]

Lol, I’m glad you quoted Bismark’s comment so I could get a good laugh.

80

[quote]usmccds423 wrote:

[quote]countingbeans wrote:

[quote]Bismark wrote:

So poor, impoverished people should have free reign to reproduce with abandon, increasingly straining the earth’s carrying capacity to the point it endangers the survival and well being of societies more generally? [/quote]

lol, yes. People should be free.

Freedom includes the ability to have sex if they so choose.

You know, people have been doing the “overpopulation” freak out for quite a long time now… Sure you want to ride that train?
[/quote]

Lol, I’m glad you quoted Bismark’s comment so I could get a good laugh.[/quote]

Your amusement doesn’t dismiss a very poignant issue. The earth does not have unlimited resources. I’m not necessarily arguing that overpopulation is a current condition, but unchecked population increases hold the potential to cross that threshold.