[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Who chooses and by what right?
If one hasn’t thought it through from first principles, this is what one may see:
The man keeps looking more and more like a dictator.
I can’t believe politicians still use the term “assault weapons”. At this point, as soon as I hear a person use the term “assault weapon” as if it actually means anything, I automatically assume they are a mindless drone, extremely ignorant, or evil.
A great post from Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children -
The world’s largest army…America’s hunters!
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number:
Over the last several months Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally
establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of
home-grown firepower.
Hunting…
it’s not just a way to fill the freezer. It’s a matter of national
security.
That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
The problem with laws that deny “fill in the blank” to felons and/or the mentally is, what else will you restrict ?
If the lack of moral turpitude is determined to be at a dangerous level, you could argue that these people should not drive, not be allowed to have steak knives, or have dental floss in their homes.
How far do you take this ?
I have found that any time a government imposes restrictions on “fill in the blank”, it usually ends up with it being expanded to more and more blanks. [/quote]
Excellent stuff, this is precisely the point I was making re: the article posted by Doc. If a state can prohibit felons from owning guns, what’s the next category? And the next category? The Second Amendment does not textually provide for certain categories of people to be restricted from gun ownership. But it is generally undisputed that some categories are available to restrict (i.e., the mentally ill).
So where do you decide to draw the line? And more importantly, how do you decide? And who does?
Vacant navel-gazing with libertarian platitudes of the awesomely awesome awesomeoness of freedom won’t get it done. How do we balance the right recognized by the Second Amendment with a state’s right to legislate in the name of the public safety of its citizens?[/quote]
Great post. No ideologue–regardless of his ideology–is equipped to answer the grey questions that arise from life in reality.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A great post from Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children -
The world’s largest army…America’s hunters!
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number:
Over the last several months Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally
establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of
home-grown firepower.
Hunting…
it’s not just a way to fill the freezer. It’s a matter of national
security.
That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
[/quote]
Are there that many deer? Or just a lot of bad hunters?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Again…if it was “normal” for people to go bankrupt, banks wouldn’t give out loans. It’s the rare exception, not the rule.
Just like if it was “normal” to get attacked every time you went out in public, you wouldn’t go out in public.
But people continue to go out in public, and banks continue to give out loans. Both take precautions, because they (the smart ones) know that there’s always a chance of having something bad happen to you. [/quote]
You see I think there’s a difference between the cost of doing business (giving out loans that may fail) and the chance of getting stabbed in a bar. Sure, we know that it may happen but it’s not unreasonable to expect to go home safe and sound.
There’s also a difference in my mind between a bank who prepares for a failed loan and me taking steps to protect myself. The scenarios are completely different.
james
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
3 pages later, and where finally getting somewhere.[/quote]
Yes, and I think some of that is my fault for trying to ask questions to establish some baseline thinking as to this. It didn’t work out so well.
[quote]UtahLama wrote:
A great post from Uncle Sam’s Misguided Children -
The world’s largest army…America’s hunters!
A blogger added up the deer license sales in just a handful of states and arrived at a striking conclusion:
There were over 600,000 hunters this season in the state of Wisconsin. Allow me to restate that number:
Over the last several months Wisconsin’s hunters became the eighth largest army in the world.
More men under arms than in Iran. More than France and Germany combined.
These men deployed to the woods of a single American state, Wisconsin, to hunt with firearms, and no one was killed.
That number pales in comparison to the 750,000 who hunted the woods of Pennsylvania and Michigan’s 700,000 hunters, all of whom have now returned home safely.
Toss in a quarter million hunters in West Virginia and it literally
establishes the fact that the hunters of those four states alone would comprise the largest army in the world. And then add in the total number of hunters in the other 46 states. It’s millions more.
The point?
America will forever be safe from foreign invasion with that kind of
home-grown firepower.
Hunting…
it’s not just a way to fill the freezer. It’s a matter of national
security.
That’s why all enemies, foreign and domestic, want to see us disarmed.
[/quote]
This has always been a poor argument to me. First off I do own guns including a very nice Japanese WWII rifle with bayonet and I think other people should be allowed to own guns.
That being said, if you think the random hunter is going to be able to defend the nation against an armed aggressor or be able to resist government troops then you’re overestimating the average joe. In order to defend something you have to be pretty well organized and well armed. That doesn’t mean a Remington 870.
Nobody else in the world can project power like we can which is why we have never been invaded. Not because of some dude in high viz with a 30.06.
james
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Again…if it was “normal” for people to go bankrupt, banks wouldn’t give out loans. It’s the rare exception, not the rule.
Just like if it was “normal” to get attacked every time you went out in public, you wouldn’t go out in public.
But people continue to go out in public, and banks continue to give out loans. Both take precautions, because they (the smart ones) know that there’s always a chance of having something bad happen to you. [/quote]
You see I think there’s a difference between the cost of doing business (giving out loans that may fail) and the chance of getting stabbed in a bar. Sure, we know that it may happen but it’s not unreasonable to expect to go home safe and sound.
There’s also a difference in my mind between a bank who prepares for a failed loan and me taking steps to protect myself. The scenarios are completely different.
james
[/quote]
Well hey, I can see where you’re coming from, I just don’t agree with your apparent conclusion. Again, bankruptcy to me, is just about as bad a crime as any random felony, in that it is damaging to society as a whole, and more importantly, shows a continual neglect of responsibility or critical thinking. It certainly won’t grab headlines like a robbery or assault will, but its impact is comparable.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
3 pages later, and where finally getting somewhere.[/quote]
Yes, and I think some of that is my fault for trying to ask questions to establish some baseline thinking as to this. It didn’t work out so well.[/quote]
The way you worded some questions came off as elusive and smug. Try being blunt and straightforward more, like towards the end of this thread. When the partisan BS clears, and we can discuss motivations and intentions alongside methods, more understanding and learning can be accomplished [on all sides].
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Well hey, I can see where you’re coming from, I just don’t agree with your apparent conclusion. Again, bankruptcy to me, is just about as bad a crime as any random felony, in that it is damaging to society as a whole, and more importantly, shows a continual neglect of responsibility or critical thinking. It certainly won’t grab headlines like a robbery or assault will, but its impact is comparable. [/quote]
It’s only damaging when companies and banks take excessive risks and don’t protect themselves from it. Businesses declare bankruptcy all the time and we all know corporations are people ( 
). It’s not a crime to declare bankruptcy and there’s plenty of good reasons why someone would do so (no, I haven’t).
james
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Try being blunt and straightforward more.[/quote]
Heh. Ok, will do.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Well hey, I can see where you’re coming from, I just don’t agree with your apparent conclusion. Again, bankruptcy to me, is just about as bad a crime as any random felony, in that it is damaging to society as a whole, and more importantly, shows a continual neglect of responsibility or critical thinking. It certainly won’t grab headlines like a robbery or assault will, but its impact is comparable. [/quote]
It’s only damaging when companies and banks take excessive risks and don’t protect themselves from it. Businesses declare bankruptcy all the time and we all know corporations are people ( ). It’s not a crime to declare bankruptcy and there’s plenty of good reasons why someone would do so (no, I haven’t).
james
[/quote]
It is a crime to take out a massive equity loan on your home, with the over-inflated value, then take the cash and run with it with the intention of going bankrupt and walking away from the property.
Come on James, you know as well as I do, that our values were so over-inflated, that my home went up 300% in value in less than 5 yrs while not changing a door knob on the place.
[quote]atypical1 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Well hey, I can see where you’re coming from, I just don’t agree with your apparent conclusion. Again, bankruptcy to me, is just about as bad a crime as any random felony, in that it is damaging to society as a whole, and more importantly, shows a continual neglect of responsibility or critical thinking. It certainly won’t grab headlines like a robbery or assault will, but its impact is comparable. [/quote]
It’s only damaging when companies and banks take excessive risks and don’t protect themselves from it. Businesses declare bankruptcy all the time and we all know corporations are people ( ). It’s not a crime to declare bankruptcy and there’s plenty of good reasons why someone would do so (no, I haven’t).
james
[/quote]
To clarify…of course it’s not a crime in the legal sense. I meant a much more general idea, along the lines of that rule “If everyone did as I did, would it be ok?”. That kind of crime.
After all, if nobody declared bankruptcy, the interest rates of loans would be MUCH lower, as a result allowing the “average joe” to live a better quality life, and possibly avoid bankruptcy himself, if he was previously teetering on the edge of making it financially. As for the people who were reasonably well-to-do already, they now have more money to spend, since less of it has to go to their mortgage, car loan, whatever…that extra money creates/allows more jobs, etc etc, blah blah blah, yay right wing! You get what I’m saying, yes?
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Try being blunt and straightforward more.[/quote]
Heh. Ok, will do.[/quote]
Not saying this to be rude, but don’t you agree that if people weren’t so intent on playing their word-games and such, and would stay focused on the topic at hand, more could get accomplished?
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Not saying this to be rude, but don’t you agree that if people weren’t so intent on playing their word-games and such, and would stay focused on the topic at hand, more could get accomplished?[/quote]
I don’t think you’re bring rude, but I also don’t think you got the point. I wasn’t playing word games - that whole “can” and “should” distinction, for example, is not pedantics. It’s at the heart of the constitutional question as to the scope of gun control.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Not saying this to be rude, but don’t you agree that if people weren’t so intent on playing their word-games and such, and would stay focused on the topic at hand, more could get accomplished?[/quote]
I don’t think you’re bring rude, but I also don’t think you got the point. I wasn’t playing word games - that whole “can” and “should” distinction, for example, is not pedantics. It’s at the heart of the constitutional question as to the scope of gun control.[/quote]
I still don’t like the way you use “can” to mean “has it been done”. I just think it’s a fundamentally wrong use of the word, and more importantly, potentially misleading as to your meanings.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
Someone is mentally challenged. They are stuck in the mindset of a 3 year old for all their adult life, and can only form basic, simple sentences. She typically needs help picking out her outfit day-to-day, cannot read,[/quote]
And therefore cannot vote.
Has the state taken her right to vote away? No. She lost it as a natural corollary of her being illiterate.
[/quote]
The state took away her right to vote BECAUSE of her inability to make an informed choice. [/quote]
That is one perspective: a perspective that shifts all the power to the government. It is precisely because most people think this way that the state gloats with more power then it can or should actually have.
This way of thinking from the people entitles the state to the Salami approach.
This institution that acts as an agent of the people didn’t take anything away from her. Her condition did.
It is precisely because you think “government” has power over people instead of being public servants of the people that they grow in size and help themselves to more power. This illusion then becomes a reality and I can understand that you reason this way: just because it has always been so it does not make it so.
Such is the nature of delusion of power and true power.
Become psychologically autonomous from the state and you will see things from a different perspective.
[quote]Alpha F wrote:
She has disallowed herself: the state only has authority over her because she is not in possession of her own individual authority.
[/quote]
An external source of power ( the state ) cannot “take away” something a person does not possess in the first place. Her condition disallowed or disabled her.
She had no power of choice in the first place, therefore her choice was not and cannot be violated.
That she did not choose to be disabled is proof she had no choice on the matter.
Her consequent loses are natural consequences that her condition impose on her.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
I still don’t like the way you use “can” to mean “has it been done”. I just think it’s a fundamentally wrong use of the word, and more importantly, potentially misleading as to your meanings. [/quote]
I don’t use it that way, and I’ve said so. Just because something has been done in the past doesn’t automatically mean that it is legal or “right” to do it now. But in the context we are looking at here - the historical use of a state to use its power to prohibit certain categories of people from having guns - historical precedent matters when trying to decide the constitutional scope and limits of what a state can do today.