Why I Didn't Go Back in the Corps

[Headhunter]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
The fact that Johny can get a gun sans permit doesn’t mean that we might as well do away with permits… or mean that permits are somehow a violation of your rights.

The only reason Johny can more easily get a gun then you is because you have to file for a permit. It’s not like you can’t get a gun yourself…

If johnny can get a gun sans permit it means that permits are not doing what they are intended to (deter gun crimes) which means they serve no purpose.

Criminals don’t care about permits so its not like a permit helps police solve crimes. It just gives the police reasons to hold a lawful person’s private information on record.[/quote]

Bingo! Give that man a ‘Monica’. A monica, btw, is a specially flavoured cigar, invented by another famous lib, Bill Clinton.

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:

…I’m not advocating “gun control”. I’m not against conceal carry permits, I’m not against ANY of that. Hell, I’m all for expanding gun rights–I wish your average student on your average university campus could carry a gun, but that’s not the case…

BTW, Porky, how do you get from “Mom was arrested for carrying a gun in her purse…is a silly example of ‘rights’ that are being taken away” (page one) to “I wish your average student on your average university campus could carry a gun (page four)?” What’s going on here? We have a clear and present split in your thinking. Mothers = no guns? Students on campus = yes guns? What about student mothers? What do you do with them? How complicated are your ideas in this sphere?[/quote]

You know, I really wanted to think of a way to neatly work the conversation back to this but I couldn’t. I’m glad you brought this up.

I think your average student on a university campus should be able to carry a gun WITH THE RIGHT PERMITS, IF THE STATE IN QUESTION REQUIRES THEM! That’s called obeying the law. The mother in the cartoon obviously was not obeying the law. She was carrying a weapon without the right permits, and criminal act… Now, hypothetically if the mother was in a state with conceal carry, then she has no excuse for not having a permit. She’s a dumb ass for wanting to have a gun but not going through the right procedure and deserves whatever she gets. Now, if the mother is in a state that doesn’t allow concealed carry and she thinks she should be allowed to carry a gun and thus does, this is a different issue. I agree that this would constitute an “abuse” of her second amendment rights by the state.

What I have been arguing against though is the very notion that even needing a permit at all is an abuse of our second amendment rights (along with seat belts laws and the like).

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

If a permit is not infringement then pray tell, what is?
[/quote]

Easy… A permit that infringes on your right to carry a guy (is an infringement). If anyone who via the second amendment should be able to get a permit for conceal carry can get a permit for conceal carry, then the permit doesn’t infringe on your rights.

I do appreciate some of your sentiments and realize you’re not StokedCharlesSchumerPorcupine. However, “government regulating guns to the extent of regulating a permit” infringes. I don’t need a government permit in order to go to church. I don’t need a government permit to write an opinion letter to the newspaper. I don’t need a permit to petition my local, state or federal government. I don’t need a government permit in order to get a jury trial. And I don’t need a permit to get a gun.

“Permission”, which is exactly what a “permit” is, I don’t need. I don’t want. And recognized natural law agrees with me.

Look, I’m not even arguing that I think permits a must… I really don’t know what I think on that. I’m arguing that the idea of having a permit–and hence that a women arrested for concealed carry without one–doesn’t necessarily constitute an abuse of your second amendment rights. Just because you don’t need a permit for all those other things doesn’t mean that permits are not needed for guns. There are obvious differences between guns and going to church that would suggest it might be needed to regulate the former to a greater extent then the latter…

Background check? Not much of a problem. Not much of an infringement. I still don’t think it’s much of an answer. One answer is swift and quick dispatch of any criminal using a gun in a violent crime.

I’m a bit confused, a background check–which could lead to someone being denied the right to buy a gun–isn’t much of a problem, but a permit–also a regulatory device that could lead to someone being denied the right to buy a gun–is? What’s the difference, really? I don’t buy your argument that a permit is nothing more then asking the government for permission that you don’t really need, since a background check is essentially asking “permission” too. It seems to me that your like of one and dislike of the other is arbitrary, and that your dislike of permits is still connected to your needless association of permits with heavy gun control laws.

Clearly you think criminals shouldn’t be allowed the same gun rights as non-violent citizens, thus a sort of regulation to this effect seems perfectly in line with even your Biblical-like views on the second amendment.

Like I said before, violent criminals lose lots and lots of rights that are afforded the innocent and rightfully so. That is not part of this discussion. Please do not invoke this no-brainer and expect it to be part and parcel of a reasonable debate.

I’m confused, how can you lose an inalienable right? Truth be told, I really hate this “rights” talk to begin with, as its incoherence leads people to saying silly things about some people losing inalienable rights. The spirit and normative force of “rights” talk is easily and coherently captured in other more clear ethical jargon… For example, the rights statement ‘One has the right to bare arms’ makes sense as the absolute moral judgment ‘A government ought not to ban its responsible citizens from owning guns’. If we understand our second amendment “rights” in the latter vain rather then the former we not only not fall into silly talk about losing inalienable rights (huh?) and thereby having to give some explanation of this seeming contradiction, but we also see right away why some people–violent criminals–don’t get any “rights” to guns.

In any case I really don’t feel like getting into whether “rights” talk works or whether we should just talk about absolute more judgments, but the point is the criminal example is relevant. Somehow you have to account for why the second amendment doesn’t apply to criminals–whether you say they lose their inalienable rights or whether you read the second amendment as not applying to them–and once you recognized that the second amendment doesn’t apply to them, then a regulatory device such as permits or background checks becomes a way to distinguish between who the second amendment does and doesn’t apply to.

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

I called you illogical because your content was outlandish in comparison to what the subject at hand was. [/quote]

So wait, you’re indiscriminately throwing around big words you don’t understand in order to make me look bad? Although that’s a good way to win an argument, it’s a bad way to establish truth.

[anon31651765]

[quote]Unaware wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
malonetd wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:
… people forced to deal with it like waiters and bartenders who might not smoke themselves.

How are they forced to deal with it? They are not forced to be a bartender or waitress. Every job has its dangers, If they don’t like it, they can change jobs.

You could say that for anything. Because coal mining is dangerous does not mean that they shouldn’t make it as safe as possible. Because welding shops are dangerous does not mean that there should be no safety precautions.

Because bartenders work at a bar/resturaunt, they shouldn’t have to deal with smoke. Neither should the patrons, the majority of which are not smokers.

Of course you can say that about anything. That’s why I said “every job has its dangers.” Level of risk should be a factor when choosing a profession.

I just don’t understand the argument for smoking bans. If people cared so much, there would have been a move towards smoke-free bars without government intervention. Like I said earlier, a few smoke-free bars open in Milwaukee a couple years ago without being forced to do so. If people are so adamant about smoke-free establishments, why hasn’t this happened on a larger scale? It’s because people really don’t care that much.

What bar would realistically take the chance of losing profits in order to do something for the safety of the public?

I never, ever saw one in NJ, and never in NY either before they banned it. There’s so many bars around here that people would just not go if they couldn’t smoke in there.

The free market does not fix everything.

The bar would not ban smoking in the interest of public safety, they would do it for a competitive advantage. If a lot of people want their bars to be smoke free, then there is an advantage to opening a smoke free bar. Smoke free bar opens, people who don’t want smoke all go to that bar, the bar makes a bunch of money. Other people see this, more smoke free bars open. Bars that cater to smokers ,however, can still allow smoking. Everyone that doesn’t like the smoke will either move to one of the new bars, or put up with the smoke because they dont perceive a benefit.

Considering the majority of people want their restaurants/bars/planes smoke free, the majority of services provided by the market would be smoke free. Business makes money by giving people what they want. [/quote]

In a final address to this point- none of that ever happened. Bars were smoke-filled, that was the end of story. So your free market model failed in real life, regardless of what you people want to say otherwise. You’re working off theory- I’m working off what actually happened.

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

In a final address to this point- none of that ever happened. Bars were smoke-filled, that was the end of story. So your free market model failed in real life, regardless of what you people want to say otherwise. You’re working off theory- I’m working off what actually happened.[/quote]

But you don’t understand… The free market is the absolute answer to everything. If only we would let people vote with their money, things would be just perfect.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

I called you illogical because your content was outlandish in comparison to what the subject at hand was.

So wait, you’re indiscriminately throwing around big words you don’t understand in order to make me look bad? Although that’s a good way to win an argument, it’s a bad way to establish truth. [/quote]

content, outlandish, comparison, and subject are big words?

[LIFTICVSMAXIMVS]

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
But you don’t understand… The free market is the absolute answer to everything. If only we would let people vote with their money, things would be just perfect.[/quote]

We do vote with our money!

In fact, we vote with every action we take. It is much more efficient than democracy because I get what I want as soon as I act whereas democracy one could wait a whole lifetime and not get what he wants. Elections are just like masturbation – we fell good afterwards but are still empty and lonely when all is said and done.

I know which system I prefer.

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]LIFTICVSMAXIMVS wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
But you don’t understand… The free market is the absolute answer to everything. If only we would let people vote with their money, things would be just perfect.

We do vote with our money!

In fact, we vote with every action we take. It is much more efficient than democracy because I get what I want as soon as I act whereas democracy one could wait a whole lifetime and not get what he wants. Elections are just like masturbation – we fell good afterwards but are still empty and lonely when all is said and done.

I know which system I prefer.[/quote]

Sure we “vote” with every action we take, but to think that that sort of voting is in general any more effective then the actual voting that goes on in democracies is stupid. It’s not. (That’s not to say it’s NOT effective, just like democratic voting is certainly effective as well.)

You say that “I get what I want as soon as I act”, surely this isn’t the case with the issue at hand–smoking in bars. If I act and do not patron bars that allow smoking (ie, all bars), then all I “get” is no bars to go to. I do not instantly get “smoke free bars”. I only get smoke free bars IF a lot of other people likewise do not patron bars, and IF someone takes the initiative to start a smoke free bar or make their bar smoke free. Those are two big IF’s… Others might not stop patronizing smoking bars because although they wish there was no smoke, it doesn’t stop them from going to bars. No one might start a new smoke free bar because it’s too big of a risk. Further, this all ignores the issue of whether or not bars should be smoke free, since it might be the case that although bars really should be smoke free that not enough people are willing to “vote” with their wallets.

In any case the idea that free market economics or democracy “fix all” is stupid. Surely the free market works well in many cases, but to blindly hold that the free market will fix all our problems ignores the fact that people act irrationally, are short sited, manipulative, etc. etc.

Further, if you feel that popular action and popular consensus always result in the best choices, why don’t you whole heartily support our president? Surely just like if lots of people vote with their wallets they can’t be wrong, if lots of people vote in an election they can’t be wrong either.

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

I called you illogical because your content was outlandish in comparison to what the subject at hand was.

So wait, you’re indiscriminately throwing around big words you don’t understand in order to make me look bad? Although that’s a good way to win an argument, it’s a bad way to establish truth.

content, outlandish, comparison, and subject are big words?[/quote]

No, ‘illogical’ is a big fancy sounding derogatory term you attempted to pin on me just to make me look stupid. You calling me illogical implies that I have somehow made some fundamental fallacies. I did not make any grave mistakes in logical reasoning though, and what you really were saying was that there were differences between the two cases that allowed the argument to run for one and not for the other. The only problem is that if you would have just stated that bluntly, without recourse to the term ‘illogical’, it would have been obvious that your claims were just question begging. You never explained WHY the argument didn’t apply in one case, you just assumed that it was soooo obvious.

The point is that while you may be correct that there are good reasons the argument applies in one case and not the other, you haven’t given any reasons and have instead chose to hide your question begging behind the word “illogical”. That my friend is a good way to win an argument, but a bad way to establish truth.

[Tiribulus]

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
FightinIrish26 wrote:

In a final address to this point- none of that ever happened. Bars were smoke-filled, that was the end of story. So your free market model failed in real life, regardless of what you people want to say otherwise. You’re working off theory- I’m working off what actually happened.

But you don’t understand… The free market is the absolute answer to everything. If only we would let people vote with their money, things would be just perfect.[/quote]

Uhhh, there is no perfect anything where human beings are involved. The founders were betting that if you create an environment where the productive thrive with the least necessary oversight, which really is no creation at all, the best of decidedly imperfect societies would result. Including the ability with refinement to include as many as would participate in good faith.

For all it’s shortcomings it was on the whole a raving success as our meteoric rise clearly evinced. Comprehensive fairness is a fantasy entertained by those with an overdeveloped immunity to historical evidence. It’s pursuit, noble in some and sinister in others, is national suicide. This country has been in escalating debt and social decay in direct proportion to the degree with which it has been sought.

Ya know who’s on the upswing? Ford Motor Company. The one automaker who has shunned federal fairness. Why? Because down inside where people live they will trust an outfit without the federal trappings every time. Ford turned a profit this quarter for the first time in forever. Is it a coincidence that they are the holdout of the big three? That it falls directly in the wake of the other 2 being taken over? I am inclined to think not. We’re bankrupt folks. SS, medicare, medicaid etc. all drowning in debt. People would be nuts to want a car now from the geniuses behind those disasters.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

I called you illogical because your content was outlandish in comparison to what the subject at hand was.

So wait, you’re indiscriminately throwing around big words you don’t understand in order to make me look bad? Although that’s a good way to win an argument, it’s a bad way to establish truth.

content, outlandish, comparison, and subject are big words?

No, ‘illogical’ is a big fancy sounding derogatory term you attempted to pin on me just to make me look stupid. You calling me illogical implies that I have somehow made some fundamental fallacies. I did not make any grave mistakes in logical reasoning though, and what you really were saying was that there were differences between the two cases that allowed the argument to run for one and not for the other. The only problem is that if you would have just stated that bluntly, without recourse to the term ‘illogical’, it would have been obvious that your claims were just question begging. You never explained WHY the argument didn’t apply in one case, you just assumed that it was soooo obvious.

The point is that while you may be correct that there are good reasons the argument applies in one case and not the other, you haven’t given any reasons and have instead chose to hide your question begging behind the word “illogical”. That my friend is a good way to win an argument, but a bad way to establish truth. [/quote]

Well if you wished to know the truth of why the two situations where not one in the same as why they did not coincide with each other, I would have gladly explained. That does not however erase your thought process on the subject, I was giving you room to retract and reestablish or reassert your statement more clearly so I and everyone could understand.

Shelter is not a leisure, I will explain no illogical accusations from me on this one as I can understand fallacy as most people do not inherently understand the situation.

I own a company that owns a building filled with condos just on the outskirt of town, now these residence of the condos pay taxes as they bought the condos, my company just runs the building and rental properties that have not been bought in the complex. The government can put back tax on these condos. Now the residence that live in the condos and lease do not pay taxes directly to the government. However, every month my company is expected to pay property tax on every condo in the building that my company owns and leases. I have pre-arranged that the residences pay a certain amount that contains upkeep, administrative fees, property taxes, etc. this is called their rent. My company however does not send these people a bill listing all of these charges, but a lump sum. This lump sum will cover what it cost to pay all the expenses that the residence are responsible for as a whole and does not change by the residence actions. This includes taxes. Now, if my company does not pay their taxes in someway, the government can put a note on these properties until the back taxes are paid off.

I do not know who I had that represented me to determine the taxes I pay, but I did not want these taxes. The taxes aren’t voluntary, but I still pay it because it makes me money, this is voluntary. It is however not voluntary for the people that bought or lease from me to pay these taxes in one form or the other.

Now, if on a Friday night I go to a bar to get some liquor up front and poker in the back (I crack myself up) and someone is smoking that is by choice only that I am in that environment. This goes the same for if I go to a restaurant, I can very well (much cheaper as well) eat in my home where I can regulate, myself, who smokes and who does not.

Shelter vs. Leisure.

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:

Well if you wished to know the truth of why the two situations where not one in the same as why they did not coincide with each other, I would have gladly explained. That does not however erase your thought process on the subject, I was giving you room to retract and reestablish or reassert your statement more clearly so I and everyone could understand.

Shelter is not a leisure, I will explain no illogical accusations from me on this one as I can understand fallacy as most people do not inherently understand the situation.

[/quote]

Your writing is damn near illiterate. As for “reasserting” my statement, I did that. You ignored it. I said:

Anyway… I’d bicker about whether or not your “shelter vs leisure” distinction matters–going to restaurants for food is not always a matter of leisure, while there are other forms of shelter, apartments, that don’t require paying taxes, etc. etc.–but that’s besides the point. Really my mentioning this argument was just an ironic retort, nothing overly substantive. My substantive points where that the government’s ability to confiscate property doesn’t necessarily make you a renter and that in the sense that you are a citizen of a nation you are in some sense a “renter”, so get over it.

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

Well if you wished to know the truth of why the two situations where not one in the same as why they did not coincide with each other, I would have gladly explained. That does not however erase your thought process on the subject, I was giving you room to retract and reestablish or reassert your statement more clearly so I and everyone could understand.

Shelter is not a leisure, I will explain no illogical accusations from me on this one as I can understand fallacy as most people do not inherently understand the situation.

Your writing is damn near illiterate. As for “reasserting” my statement, I did that. You ignored it. I said:

Anyway… I’d bicker about whether or not your “shelter vs leisure” distinction matters–going to restaurants for food is not always a matter of leisure, while there are other forms of shelter, apartments, that don’t require paying taxes, etc. etc.–but that’s besides the point. Really my mentioning this argument was just an ironic retort, nothing overly substantive. My substantive points where that the government’s ability to confiscate property doesn’t necessarily make you a renter and that in the sense that you are a citizen of a nation you are in some sense a “renter”, so get over it.
[/quote]

There is a difference between illiterate, and when I just use big words to screw with you. However, there is a simple (yet major difference) between going to a restaurant and living in a house. I understand what you say about the apartment, but you still have to pay taxes, either directly or indirectly. The restaurant is purely choice, in what instance do you require to go to a restaurant?

[anon31651765]

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Uhhh, there is no perfect anything where human beings are involved. The founders were betting that if you create an environment where the productive thrive with the least necessary oversight, which really is no creation at all, the best of decidedly imperfect societies would result. Including the ability with refinement to include as many as would participate in good faith.

For all it’s shortcomings it was on the whole a raving success as our meteoric rise clearly evinced. Comprehensive fairness is a fantasy entertained by those with an overdeveloped immunity to historical evidence. It’s pursuit, noble in some and sinister in others, is national suicide. This country has been in escalating debt and social decay in direct proportion to the degree with which it has been sought.
[/quote]

And many of those little “shortfalls,” like slavery and child labor and the like, have been fixed by the liberals you hate so much. Without workers’ movements, you’d still see people getting paid nickels for work done with no regard to safety. There is a fine balance to it, and it doesn’t involve the government stepping back with a hands off approach.

History proves over and over again that the free market does not fix all problems. Somehow you are the only wingnuts that miss that fact.

[stokedporcupine8]

[quote]Brother Chris wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

Well if you wished to know the truth of why the two situations where not one in the same as why they did not coincide with each other, I would have gladly explained. That does not however erase your thought process on the subject, I was giving you room to retract and reestablish or reassert your statement more clearly so I and everyone could understand.

Shelter is not a leisure, I will explain no illogical accusations from me on this one as I can understand fallacy as most people do not inherently understand the situation.

Your writing is damn near illiterate. As for “reasserting” my statement, I did that. You ignored it. I said:

Anyway… I’d bicker about whether or not your “shelter vs leisure” distinction matters–going to restaurants for food is not always a matter of leisure, while there are other forms of shelter, apartments, that don’t require paying taxes, etc. etc.–but that’s besides the point. Really my mentioning this argument was just an ironic retort, nothing overly substantive. My substantive points where that the government’s ability to confiscate property doesn’t necessarily make you a renter and that in the sense that you are a citizen of a nation you are in some sense a “renter”, so get over it.

There is a difference between illiterate, and when I just use big words to screw with you. However, there is a simple (yet major difference) between going to a restaurant and living in a house. I understand what you say about the apartment, but you still have to pay taxes, either directly or indirectly. The restaurant is purely choice, in what instance do you require to go to a restaurant?[/quote]

I said your writing was damn near illiterate because your sentences are such a syntactic mess that it is difficult to pull the semantics from them. IE, It’s difficult to tell what your poorly formed sentences are suppose to mean. Your incorrect use of words doesn’t make you illiterate, just ignorant.

[orion]

[quote]FightinIrish26 wrote:

And many of those little “shortfalls,” like slavery and child labor and the like, have been fixed by the liberals you hate so much. Without workers’ movements, you’d still see people getting paid nickels for work done with no regard to safety. There is a fine balance to it, and it doesn’t involve the government stepping back with a hands off approach.

[/quote]

This is such ignorant nonsense.

Really.

You should at least know that as capital accumulates wages must rise because human labor becomes increasingly scarce compared to capital.

Rising wages are an inevitable market function and not something that can be willed by a government.

In fact, minimum wages only make sure that those who are not productive enough to get paid that wage remain unemployed, i.e. they lead to structural unemployment.

[anon31651765]

[quote]orion wrote:

Rising wages are an inevitable market function and not something that can be willed by a government.
[/quote]

Inevitable my ass. There’s plenty of jobs that pay so little it would be impossible to live off them. I guess this skipped over those?

In fact, minimum wages only make sure that those who are not productive enough to get paid that wage remain unemployed, i.e. they lead to structural unemployment.

It was made so, as Bill Maher once said, “The lower class doesn’t rise up and kill people like you and me.”

And that theory of yours is asinine. Where has that ever been demonstrated?

[Brother_Chris]

[quote]stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:
stokedporcupine8 wrote:
Brother Chris wrote:

Well if you wished to know the truth of why the two situations where not one in the same as why they did not coincide with each other, I would have gladly explained. That does not however erase your thought process on the subject, I was giving you room to retract and reestablish or reassert your statement more clearly so I and everyone could understand.

Shelter is not a leisure, I will explain no illogical accusations from me on this one as I can understand fallacy as most people do not inherently understand the situation.

Your writing is damn near illiterate. As for “reasserting” my statement, I did that. You ignored it. I said:

Anyway… I’d bicker about whether or not your “shelter vs leisure” distinction matters–going to restaurants for food is not always a matter of leisure, while there are other forms of shelter, apartments, that don’t require paying taxes, etc. etc.–but that’s besides the point. Really my mentioning this argument was just an ironic retort, nothing overly substantive. My substantive points where that the government’s ability to confiscate property doesn’t necessarily make you a renter and that in the sense that you are a citizen of a nation you are in some sense a “renter”, so get over it.

There is a difference between illiterate, and when I just use big words to screw with you. However, there is a simple (yet major difference) between going to a restaurant and living in a house. I understand what you say about the apartment, but you still have to pay taxes, either directly or indirectly. The restaurant is purely choice, in what instance do you require to go to a restaurant?

I said your writing was damn near illiterate because your sentences are such a syntactic mess that it is difficult to pull the semantics from them. IE, It’s difficult to tell what your poorly formed sentences are suppose to mean. Your incorrect use of words doesn’t make you illiterate, just ignorant. [/quote]

Poorly used? Maybe for the situation.