Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
We get it, you're a NATURAL RIGHTS proponent. And, when it comes to weapons, if we were a population of 2.5m who lived on a frontier with muskets for food as well as defense then I'd agree with you. But we are now 314m, live in megacities, don't hunt for food and automatic weapons are well within the price reach of the average person.
I also get that NATURAL starting position drives your FOSSIL CONSTITUTION position because if the constitution were dynamic with respect to the world we actually live in then the working assumption is our rights would then be open to being continuously abridged as a result. But It's a bankrupt position and even the most conservative jurists on the bench don't buy it. Your ideal position unavoidably would allow me to personally possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons with no ability of the government to intervene. And you know that even our conservative justices don't buy it or there would be open and concealed carry in their courtroom.
And f*#k guns. Guns, in monetary terms, are ATM-scale violence. We now unfortunately live in a world where I personally can commit federal reserve-scale violence. I could clear out my shop for a CRISPR lab, decide to retire and use my industrial TCP/IP skills for less-than-benevolent purposes, or find novel untraceable surface-to-air uses for high power lasers in defense against unconstitutional overflights of my property. Bottom line is mine is an active world of very real consequences whereas yours is a passive world of principles without them.
And I would go even further and say modern transportation, communication and computing capabilities have rendered the very notion of states an anachronism we can now ill-afford from governance, infrastructure and comparative advantage perspectives. The sooner they are abolished, the better off we will be as a nation.
|
|
overwatch
climber
|
|
The wall of text at least makes a legitimate attempt at defending its position without the tactics of the anti side (personal attacks, name calling, endless graphics; I hate that other dumb word)
You too DeeMizzleTizzle...good post and I would probably be called a gun guy by the anti's. (I have 8 guns)
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2015 - 08:20am PT
|
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
I read this morning that ISIS said that the San Bernardino killers were merely "followers" of ISIS and not members thereof.
perhaps true members have to be officially dipped in blood or something....
|
|
TGT
Social climber
So Cal
|
|
More likely Al Nusra (an Al Qaeda offshoot) since they got their training in Soddy Arabia
http://rantburg.com/poparticle.php?D=12/05/2015&SO=&HC=3&ID=437617
Doesn't matter which version of the death cult of the child molesting warlord enabled this.
There are virulent fascistic, racist cults out there murdering anyone that will not submit to their version of Islam.
Meanwhile you all go on for pages about disarming the potential victims while refusing to give a name to evil.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2015 - 09:35am PT
|
I'll give the evil a name, it's Ignorance.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
We get it, you're a NATURAL RIGHTS proponent. And, when it comes to weapons, if we were a population of 2.5m who lived on a frontier with muskets for food as well as defense then I'd agree with you. But we are now 314m, live in megacities, don't hunt for food and automatic weapons are well within the price reach of the average person.
Circumstances do not constrain principles. And if you HONESTLY believed that they did, then you'd have to say that slavery was RIGHT as long as it was convenient.
I also get that NATURAL starting position drives your FOSSIL CONSTITUTION position because if the constitution were dynamic with respect to the world we actually live in then the working assumption is our rights would then be open to being continuously abridged as a result.
I don't believe in a "fossil constitution" in the sense you are saying here. I do believe in a dynamic, changeable constitution... within the limits imposed by rights.
Your last sentence makes the same mistake as most make here: conflating rights with documents. Our RIGHTS cannot be abridged or changed due to changes in a document. Rather, proposed changes in the document must be held up against the light of rights to see if the proposed changes conform to rights.
But It's a bankrupt position and even the most conservative jurists on the bench don't buy it.
That's a really lame argument, so I'm surprised you're floating it. Right and wrong are not determined by majority, by the SCOTUS, or by any other document or group of guys. You know this to be true, because, as I said above, you would then be forced to say that slavery was RIGHT for its time. Hitler was RIGHT for his nation in his time. And so on.
The objectivity of rights is not a "bankrupt position" merely because so few presently remember it. And the vast confusion on the part of the SCOTUS is irrelevant regarding the legitimacy of a position.
Your ideal position unavoidably would allow me to personally possess biological, chemical and nuclear weapons with no ability of the government to intervene.
Absolutely not! That's a straw-man argument, and you know it. I've repeatedly explained that there is a very principled and bright line between weapons of personal defense and WMDs. Don't pretend that my position is a slippery slope. That's an argument you try to float to the run-of-the-mill, ignorant gun-nuts. I am none of the above, and my position in NO way implies some supposed "right" of individuals to possess WMDs!
And you know that even our conservative justices don't buy it or there would be open and concealed carry in their courtroom.
Again, you conflate "what is done" or "what is believed" with "what is true and correct." Just the fact that there ARE gun-free zones does NOT imply that this position is correct or consistent.
And f*#k guns. Guns, in monetary terms, are ATM-scale violence. We now unfortunately live in a world where I personally can commit federal reserve-scale violence. I could clear out my shop for a CRISPR lab, decide to retire and use my industrial TCP/IP skills for less-than-benevolent purposes, or find novel untraceable surface-to-air uses for high power lasers in defense against unconstitutional overflights of my property. Bottom line is mine is an active world of very real consequences whereas yours is a passive world of principles without them.
It's funny that I'm accused of ranting. That was quite a rant, Joe.
Your world is not what you say it is, and neither is mine.
And I would go even further and say modern transportation, communication and computing capabilities have rendered the very notion of states an anachronism we can now ill-afford from governance, infrastructure and comparative advantage perspectives. The sooner they are abolished, the better off we will be as a nation.
Yikes! And I'M the "radical"?
Not on my watch, Joe. Not on my watch.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2015 - 11:00am PT
|
I'm sure we all feel safer knowing MB1 is on watch.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2015 - 12:26pm PT
|
So called "Bullet Proof" blankets for kids to cower under during shooting rampages at school.
Only in Uhmurkkka land of the scared home of the stupid.
Is this really the world you want kids to be forced to grow up in simply to maintain your irrational need to be packing 24/7?
Maybe you should take a closer look at the man in the mirror.
if he still scares you then by all means shoot him.
If this is the reality that the NRA and 2nd Amendment adherents think makes sense then I suggest the US Gov should immediately impose a 50+% tax on all gun and ammo sales to fund the hardening of schools against attack.
Hell just skip school and send all kids straight to jail. After all prison life is a more realistic education in the domestic war zone aka Uhmurkkka.
|
|
Lorenzo
Trad climber
Portland Oregon
|
|
Dec 4, 2015 - 11:18pm PT
Mr Brennan writes:
"That sounds like even though I'm not classified as American, I'm still protected by the American Constitution and Bill of Rights while on American soil."
As a foreigner, you only have the rights that a majority of Congress says you have. The rights in our Constitution are for "Ourselves and our Posterity".
Good morning, gentlemen.
I will suggest you both actually read the text of the constitution.
http://constitutioncenter.org/media/files/constitution.pdf
It makes distinctions between "the people" ,"persons", and "citizens". Some would say "the people of the United States" is a separate category, but membership in that class isn't defined in the founding document, and it only appears at the beginning of the document , before citizenship is defined and as a claim to who is doing the deciding. It doesn't necessarily exclude anybody.
In English, People is almost universally a plural word, a body of the whole. It is certainly that in "We the people". The words person and citizen are singular. If you wish to include more that one of a singular class, the second two become persons and citizens, and rights and duties extend to each individual of the class.
Congress and the president are empowered to legislate and enforce what some rights are for each class, and the constitution restrict their power to do so in other cases. But the document gave states the full power to decide who their citizens could be up to 1808, and arguably, beyond.
In a few cases, the rights of the accused are SPECIFICALLY applied to some citizens of other nations, and enumerate which body is authorized to try them, and what their rights at trial are.
One example is thisAmendment 6 - Right to Speedy Trial, Confrontation of Witnesses. Ratified 12/15/1791.
In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses
And this
section 3 - Treason
Treason against the United States, shall consist only in levying War against them, or in adhering to their Enemies, giving them Aid and Comfort. No Person shall be convicted of Treason unless on the Testimony of two Witnesses to the same overt Act, or on Confession in open Court.
And this:
In all Cases affecting Ambassadors, other public Ministers and Consuls, and those in which a State shall be Party, the supreme Court shall have original Jurisdiction. In all the other Cases before mentioned, the supreme Court shall have appellate Jurisdiction, both as to Law and Fact, with such Exceptions, and under such Regulations as the Congress shall make
Congress has no power to deny these rights. Article 3 ( judiciary) and the 11th ammendment grant jurisdiction in the courts to foreigners.
Only perversely tortured reasoning would suggest that a foreign citizen is not entitled to due process under these provisions. The right to trial says" all criminal prosecution" and "accused".
A foreigner has the same right to be spared punishment by drawing and quartering ("corruption of blood" ) that a citizen has. Rest easy, Canadians.
As I think of it, that clause might extend to protection from sentence of death by lethal injection.
The constitution is replete with examples that extend rights to foreigners unless you wish to argue a foreigner isn't a person. (Good luck with that), including the first, possibly the second (right to keep and bear arms, since " congress shall make no law" etc.), the third, fourth, fifth, sixth, seventh, and eight amendments. Read them carefully.
To argue otherwise would actually empower foreigners with rights citizens don't have. For instance, if you argue a foreigner is not a person under the constitution, he is immune from the requirement to extradition from state to state for crimes, since the state right to demand extradition extends to persons.
Probably the most telling clauses to be found in the constitution of what the founding fathers thought a person is are two sections of article IV:
A Person charged in any State with Treason, Felony, or other Crime, who shall flee from Justice, and be found in another State, shall on demand of the executive Authority of the State from which he fled, be delivered up, to be removed to the State having Jurisdiction of the Crime.
(No Person held to Service or Labour in one State, under the Laws thereof, escaping into another, shall, in Consequence of any Law or Regulation therein, be discharged from such Service or Labour, But shall be delivered up on Claim of the Party to whom such Service or Labour may be due.)
The part in parentheses is of course the fugitive slave clause, no longer in effect. The Supreme courts during slavery determined that slaves were persons with no rights and no citizenship, while at the same time classing them persons. Even they were subject to the clause before.
Who a citizen is, other than a person born in the United States, is nowhere fully defined until the thirteenth and fourteenth ammendments, except to say that individual states had full right to determine that until 1808. The constitution does include the concept that citizenship of a state confers citizenship to the Nation.
The thirteenth ammendment does make a pass at defining citizenship, then says the right to full protection under the law cannot be denied to any "person" by a State.
Non citizens shall be counted in census for apportionment of the house (except,originally, untaxed Indians but including Slaves) , and the speaker of the house need be neither elected nor a citizen. The original constitution only really requires that the President and elected members of the house and Senate be a natural born or naturalized citizen. (The president must be natural born) I don't even see where the Vice President, president pro tempore, or Supreme Court Justices must be citizens, but it isn't in the first four articles that define those bodies. So it can't be seen as a requirement by the founding authors. If you consider the position of Acting President as distinct from President, a foreigner could be running the armed forces and a Foreiner Vice President could break ties in The Senate. A foreign Chief Justice could preside over the impeachment of a President.
Even in the case of voting, the constitution does not deny foreigners the right to vote. The power to decide that is ceded to the states. The Constitution in its amendments DOES say that you can't deny the right to vote on the basis of sex, race, etc. to citizens. It doesn't say states can't extend the right to foreigners.
Spend a day reading the document carefully, with an idea of what words mean and what words are in the document ( and aren't ). As otherwise noted, the word "inalienable" isn't in the document. Word search doesn't produce it. You probably should not invent a quote attributable to the constitution with that word in it. The Constitution is actually an ammendment of the Articles of Confederation and ratified under the terms of that document. I'd highly suggest reading that also. "Inalienable" doesn't appear there, either.
The word does appear in another founding document, specifically the Declaration of Independence as Unalienable. If you use it, tell us how it applies to the other two documents.
Here's a hint:
"Amendment 10 - Powers of the States and People. Ratified 12/15/1791.
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people."
And:
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.
It would seem unalienable rights are not restricted to citizens or empowered by the Constitution , but endowed by their creator to all and include other unalienable rights.
Note it's their creator, not yours.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2015 - 01:26pm PT
|
Man hugged girl, 7, at soccer practice, then killed her
Gina Damron and By Ann Zaniewski, Detroit Free Press Education Writer 1:41 p.m. EST December 5, 2015
Emma Watson Nowling took a quick break from soccer practice Thursday night to greet a man walking by the sidelines.
"Little Emma went up and gave the guy a hug," Emma's soccer coach, Mario Scicluna, said.
Later that night, that man, Timothy Nelson Obeshaw, shot 7-year-old Emma and her mother, 37-year-old Sharon Elizabeth Watson, in the parking lot of the Taylor Sportsplex before turning his 9mm pistol on himself, according to Taylor police. Authorities described Obeshaw as a family friend.
Emma died from her injuries. Watson is in serious condition at a local hospital, police said.
Police said family members described the 57-year-old Obeshaw — who had lived with Watson and her boyfriend at their home in Belleville before recently moving to a home in Taylor — as mentally unstable. A motive, though, remains unclear, according to police.
"Police found evidence that Obeshaw believed someone was trying to perform mind control on him," according to a news release from the Taylor Police Department.
DETROIT FREE PRESS
Man shoots 2, kills self at Taylor Sportsplex
Police said the girl and her mother were at the Sportsplex for soccer practice. Obeshaw was there, too, and "there was what appeared to be friendly interaction between the three at the start of practice," the release says.
Sharon Elizabeth Watson, 37, and her 7-year-old daughter Emma Watson Nowling were shot in the parking lot of the Taylor Sportsplex on Dec. 3, 2015. Emma died from injuries and her mother is in serious condition, police said. (Photo: Courtesy of the Taylor Police Department)
Scicluna said Obeshaw had attended Emma's games before. Obeshaw arrived about 15 minutes after practice started at 6:30 p.m., Scicluna said.
"As he was walking by the sidelines, (Emma) went up and gave him a big hug and went back to her training," he said.
Scicluna didn't notice any signs of trouble. But as the mother and daughter were preparing to leave just before 8 p.m., Obeshaw, who had registered the handgun in his name in Belleville in September, shot them in their vehicle, then killed himself, police said. The gun was recovered, according to police.
Scicluna said he learned something was wrong when he saw "the panicked looked on some of the parents running the other way," and the flashing lights of police cars. About 40 children were at practice that night.
"A lot of the families are in shock and were traumatized by what happened," he said.
Scicluna said he had been coaching Emma, who plays as part of the Waza F.C. soccer club, for about two months. She was always smiling, he said.
"She was a fun, excited girl," he said. "As time went on, she developed her soccer skills very rapidly, and was showing a lot of enthusiasm for the game. She had a bright future ahead of her."
Scicluna is starting a GoFundMe page to raise money for Emma's family.
He said players will honor her with a moment of silence at soccer games this weekend.
Contact Gina Damron: 313-223-4526 or gdamron@freepress.com
So here was a guy with a LEGALLY obtained and registered gun who went from your classic "good guy with a gun" to a "bad guy with a gun" in a frighteningly short period of time.
I'm sure the NRA and our few resident gunhuggers will suggest that all those little soccer kids and stressed out soccer moms should have been open carrying guns. Just imagine teams of pee wee league soccer kids playing ball while packing heat. Yeah that will surely deter the good guys gone bad. What could possibly go wrong.
|
|
rbord
Boulder climber
atlanta
|
|
I don't know.
I think mostly we think there's a right answer and I have it! and if only everyone else could have it too then we'd be all cool, and while we're each so sure that our answer is the right answer because of our own omniscient omnipotent awesomeness, I think we're each just pieces of reality working out the solution of what's the right way for us to believe, and what's the right balance of greed and altruism and violence and pacifism for us, and it just leaves us all believing our neighbors are nutcases for not seeing reality the right way, the way that I see it.
So yea, sure, I agree :-)
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
Philo, fear of normal Syrian refugees (who've we've bombed out of their homes) is just as irrational as this fear of firearms and those who legally possess them that you have.
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2015 - 03:18pm PT
|
The same reason Philo posts over and over the "Potential" for mayhem from a Gun Owner.
Actually I don't do that. I post the facts about gun violence in America and about the actual carnage occuring weekly.
Keep your head in the sand, sand fleas are hungry.
It is you folks with the arsenals and handguns under your pillow that are the ones afraid.
Why else would you need to be packing 24/7?
I'm not afraid I am outraged by the needless carnage and the unconscionable toll of stress it burdens our children with.
Is your insistance in your right to pack heat really worth the cost to society?
|
|
HighDesertDJ
Trad climber
|
|
GLillegard posted Despite national attention to the issue of firearm violence, most Americans are unaware that gun crime is lower today than it was two decades ago. According to a new Pew Research Center survey, today 56% of Americans believe gun crime is higher than 20 years ago and only 12% think it is lower.
Crime rates (2011 / 2013)
Crime type Rate*
Homicide: 4.6 / 4.5
Forcible rape: 27.0 / 26.9
Robbery: 113.9 / 112.9
Aggravated assault: 241.5 / 242.3
Total violent crime: 387.1 / 386.9
Media coverage drives perception so it's understandable why people think it's worse. It's not down by terribly impressive amounts, however, and even if it was down 20%, 9,600 gun homicides would still be unacceptable.
|
|
Norton
Social climber
|
|
fear of normal Syrian refugees (who've we've bombed out of their homes) is just as irrational as this fear of firearms and those who legally possess them that you have.
yet legally purchased guns owned by otherwise "law abiding" people just used those
guns to murder some 17 people
and that is equivalent to being equally as "fearful" of refugee families?
contorted rationalization, imo
|
|
philo
climber
|
|
|
Topic Author's Reply - Dec 5, 2015 - 03:31pm PT
|
Reread my post about the legal gun owner who shot and killed the seven year old soccer player. Good guy legal gun owner v dead seven year old and severely wounded mom.
Hey hey hey NRA how many kids did you kill today.
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!