|
Read the rules in the OP before posting, please.In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up! NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action. |
On April 15 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Why are people opposed to a federal gun ownership registry? What difference does that make? In America people need something to be paranoid about, it is part of the "Us versus Them" mentality that occupies and rots our intelligence in this country.
On April 15 2013 06:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 10:25 Sermokala wrote:
Everyone wants background checks just like they want gun control. The devil however is in the details and I see the NRA making how those background checks work consume this wave of new gun control popularity. Its a stunning victory for the NRA from where they started out from not that long ago.
A national system tracking gun sales is the same as forcing people to register your guns with the government and allowing them to know who has guns and who/if they sold it to anyone. there physically isn't a way to make it work so that you don't have nationally registered guns and yet have a credible background check system.
People are just going to sell guns and then claim that they were stolen, then some guy down the line will "find it in the street with no serial numbers and no other way to identify which gun it is" and laugh at the system. Anything less won't have a reason to exist at all and anything more will cause the democrats to lose their spot in government to a resurgent and united republican party.
The NRA has won a victory where the only thing that is being debated is a win-win for them. what the fuck are these people. Competent? Lol The truth is gun control legislation is pissing in the wind, and avoiding the issue in the first place. Almost all massacres [like 90%] have happened in gun free zones. Gun free zones and cities with stronger gun control have more gun deaths. Regardless, you cant limit the use of guns by criminals [because by nature they will use them in illegal manners] except by reducing the amount of guns in a dramatic way. Which can only be done through extensive buy outs, and, ultimately, confiscation. There are a hundred million guns out there. It wont happen, its illiberal to try, and its populist hollow rhetoric to claim anything else. Exactly the only thing you can do to reduce gun violence is to look at the proximal causes of crime itself. Mental illness, low income mobility, drug use, etc, and orient programs to solving them [or rather, more realistically, reduce the amount of harmful legislation]. In other words, if you want a peaceful society, you must engender laws and an environment that create a peaceful and collaborative civil society. NOT rely on the Government to make it all better by fiat. This should be *the* hallmark of Liberals in America, fostering civil society and individual responsibility. But then again, Liberals in America arent actually Liberals, which we all know too well. @Gun registry question: Its an invasion of privacy, its offensive as it makes it seem as if gun owners are suspect, its pointless because anyone who would register isnt someone we need to have registered in the first place, its a centralization of power in a bloated and malevolent federal government, and it absolutely is part in parcel of gun confiscation in the long term.
Practically on cue. Though Dazed_Spy is in Canada, I'd say it still applies. And what is it with these Canadian anti-government types? I never would have guessed that there even were any prior to seeing them on TL.
@Dazed_Spy, hold the spit, extra actual facts and evidence please. It's for a cop.
|
On April 15 2013 06:33 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 14 2013 10:25 Sermokala wrote:
Everyone wants background checks just like they want gun control. The devil however is in the details and I see the NRA making how those background checks work consume this wave of new gun control popularity. Its a stunning victory for the NRA from where they started out from not that long ago.
A national system tracking gun sales is the same as forcing people to register your guns with the government and allowing them to know who has guns and who/if they sold it to anyone. there physically isn't a way to make it work so that you don't have nationally registered guns and yet have a credible background check system.
People are just going to sell guns and then claim that they were stolen, then some guy down the line will "find it in the street with no serial numbers and no other way to identify which gun it is" and laugh at the system. Anything less won't have a reason to exist at all and anything more will cause the democrats to lose their spot in government to a resurgent and united republican party.
The NRA has won a victory where the only thing that is being debated is a win-win for them. what the fuck are these people. Competent? Lol The truth is gun control legislation is pissing in the wind, and avoiding the issue in the first place. Almost all massacres [like 90%] have happened in gun free zones. Gun free zones and cities with stronger gun control have more gun deaths. Regardless, you cant limit the use of guns by criminals [because by nature they will use them in illegal manners] except by reducing the amount of guns in a dramatic way. Which can only be done through extensive buy outs, and, ultimately, confiscation. There are a hundred million guns out there. It wont happen, its illiberal to try, and its populist hollow rhetoric to claim anything else. Exactly the only thing you can do to reduce gun violence is to look at the proximal causes of crime itself. Mental illness, low income mobility, drug use, etc, and orient programs to solving them. In other words, if you want a peaceful society, you must engender laws and an environment that create a peaceful and collaborative civil society. NOT rely on the Government to make it all better by fiat. This should be *the* hallmark of Liberals in America, fostering civil society and individual responsibility. But then again, Liberals in America arent actually Liberals, which we all know too well. Sir this is US politics. Doing shit that actually matters is pretty far down the list of priorities. The markers for who are "liberals" and who are "conservatives" changes from country to country. Please stop trying to confuse things by appropriating the labels from one system of government and applying them to another. I'm aware its uses change by country to country, but its infuriating nontheless. People who are interested in the increase of liberty should call themselves Liberals, and if your interested in equality [or whatever it is]...you should not.  On April 15 2013 06:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 15 2013 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Why are people opposed to a federal gun ownership registry? What difference does that make? In America people need something to be paranoid about, it is part of the "Us versus Them" mentality that occupies and rots our intelligence in this country. Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 14 2013 10:25 Sermokala wrote:
Everyone wants background checks just like they want gun control. The devil however is in the details and I see the NRA making how those background checks work consume this wave of new gun control popularity. Its a stunning victory for the NRA from where they started out from not that long ago.
A national system tracking gun sales is the same as forcing people to register your guns with the government and allowing them to know who has guns and who/if they sold it to anyone. there physically isn't a way to make it work so that you don't have nationally registered guns and yet have a credible background check system.
People are just going to sell guns and then claim that they were stolen, then some guy down the line will "find it in the street with no serial numbers and no other way to identify which gun it is" and laugh at the system. Anything less won't have a reason to exist at all and anything more will cause the democrats to lose their spot in government to a resurgent and united republican party.
The NRA has won a victory where the only thing that is being debated is a win-win for them. what the fuck are these people. Competent? Lol The truth is gun control legislation is pissing in the wind, and avoiding the issue in the first place. Almost all massacres [like 90%] have happened in gun free zones. Gun free zones and cities with stronger gun control have more gun deaths. Regardless, you cant limit the use of guns by criminals [because by nature they will use them in illegal manners] except by reducing the amount of guns in a dramatic way. Which can only be done through extensive buy outs, and, ultimately, confiscation. There are a hundred million guns out there. It wont happen, its illiberal to try, and its populist hollow rhetoric to claim anything else. Exactly the only thing you can do to reduce gun violence is to look at the proximal causes of crime itself. Mental illness, low income mobility, drug use, etc, and orient programs to solving them [or rather, more realistically, reduce the amount of harmful legislation]. In other words, if you want a peaceful society, you must engender laws and an environment that create a peaceful and collaborative civil society. NOT rely on the Government to make it all better by fiat. This should be *the* hallmark of Liberals in America, fostering civil society and individual responsibility. But then again, Liberals in America arent actually Liberals, which we all know too well. @Gun registry question: Its an invasion of privacy, its offensive as it makes it seem as if gun owners are suspect, its pointless because anyone who would register isnt someone we need to have registered in the first place, its a centralization of power in a bloated and malevolent federal government, and it absolutely is part in parcel of gun confiscation in the long term. Practically on cue. Though Dazed_Spy is in Canada, I'd say it still applies. And what is it with these Canadian anti-government types? I never would have guessed that there even were any prior to seeing them on TL. @Dazed_Spy, hold the spit, extra actual facts and evidence please. It's for a cop. I dont know whats with the weird condescension about 'right on cue', I mean this is a politics thread, what do you expect if not diverging view points? And I think we have plenty of anti government types because our Government is terrible, much like any Government anywhere. Not to mention the explicit contradiction between our societies professed love of Liberty and tolerance with a bloated and directive Government.
And I dont know what you mean in the bold, sorry.
|
On April 15 2013 06:41 farvacola wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 15 2013 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Why are people opposed to a federal gun ownership registry? What difference does that make? In America people need something to be paranoid about, it is part of the "Us versus Them" mentality that occupies and rots our intelligence in this country. Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 14 2013 10:25 Sermokala wrote:
Everyone wants background checks just like they want gun control. The devil however is in the details and I see the NRA making how those background checks work consume this wave of new gun control popularity. Its a stunning victory for the NRA from where they started out from not that long ago.
A national system tracking gun sales is the same as forcing people to register your guns with the government and allowing them to know who has guns and who/if they sold it to anyone. there physically isn't a way to make it work so that you don't have nationally registered guns and yet have a credible background check system.
People are just going to sell guns and then claim that they were stolen, then some guy down the line will "find it in the street with no serial numbers and no other way to identify which gun it is" and laugh at the system. Anything less won't have a reason to exist at all and anything more will cause the democrats to lose their spot in government to a resurgent and united republican party.
The NRA has won a victory where the only thing that is being debated is a win-win for them. what the fuck are these people. Competent? Lol The truth is gun control legislation is pissing in the wind, and avoiding the issue in the first place. Almost all massacres [like 90%] have happened in gun free zones. Gun free zones and cities with stronger gun control have more gun deaths. Regardless, you cant limit the use of guns by criminals [because by nature they will use them in illegal manners] except by reducing the amount of guns in a dramatic way. Which can only be done through extensive buy outs, and, ultimately, confiscation. There are a hundred million guns out there. It wont happen, its illiberal to try, and its populist hollow rhetoric to claim anything else. Exactly the only thing you can do to reduce gun violence is to look at the proximal causes of crime itself. Mental illness, low income mobility, drug use, etc, and orient programs to solving them [or rather, more realistically, reduce the amount of harmful legislation]. In other words, if you want a peaceful society, you must engender laws and an environment that create a peaceful and collaborative civil society. NOT rely on the Government to make it all better by fiat. This should be *the* hallmark of Liberals in America, fostering civil society and individual responsibility. But then again, Liberals in America arent actually Liberals, which we all know too well. @Gun registry question: Its an invasion of privacy, its offensive as it makes it seem as if gun owners are suspect, its pointless because anyone who would register isnt someone we need to have registered in the first place, its a centralization of power in a bloated and malevolent federal government, and it absolutely is part in parcel of gun confiscation in the long term. Practically on cue. Though Dazed_Spy is in Canada, I'd say it still applies. And what is it with these Canadian anti-government types? I never would have guessed that there even were any prior to seeing them on TL. @Dazed_Spy, hold the spit, extra actual facts and evidence please. It's for a cop.
I don't even know if they actually exist in the real world to be honest, I have never seen a Canadian anywhere near as anti-government as the breed seen on the internet.
|
On April 15 2013 06:25 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 14 2013 11:26 aksfjh wrote:On April 14 2013 10:50 Sermokala wrote:On April 14 2013 10:40 aksfjh wrote:On April 14 2013 10:25 Sermokala wrote:
Everyone wants background checks just like they want gun control. The devil however is in the details and I see the NRA making how those background checks work consume this wave of new gun control popularity. Its a stunning victory for the NRA from where they started out from not that long ago.
A national system tracking gun sales is the same as forcing people to register your guns with the government and allowing them to know who has guns and who/if they sold it to anyone. there physically isn't a way to make it work so that you don't have nationally registered guns and yet have a credible background check system.
People are just going to sell guns and then claim that they were stolen, then some guy down the line will "find it in the street with no serial numbers and no other way to identify which gun it is" and laugh at the system. Anything less won't have a reason to exist at all and anything more will cause the democrats to lose their spot in government to a resurgent and united republican party.
The NRA has won a victory where the only thing that is being debated is a win-win for them. what the fuck are these people. Isn't it a federal crime to be carrying a gun with no serial number? Also, the NRA is lobbying against this thing like crazy, asking for "current laws to be enforced" instead. If someone is able to notice that you don't have serial numbers on your gun a federal crime is probably one of the last things you need to be worried about. The NRA has always been against any new laws. By fighting like hell against background checks specifically they can allow their top guys to "compromise" on it and make it look like a victory that the other side expends sufficient political capital on to make the whole fight to begin with worth it. Basically they chose the battlefield that the whole debate is now framed on. therein lies their victory no matter what happens. But a hollow victory. It doesn't seem like the Democrats are expending much capital to push this part through, but Republicans are likely to be "exposed" as uncooperative if they obstruct it. Assault weapon bans and the like aren't likely to be passed in the climate anyways, since it's been pointed out multiple times that many of the guns used wouldn't be affected. The original ban also turned out to be quite unpopular in hindsight. But on the far contrary. They've managed to burn all of the democrats political capital for this that they've built up from a decade from their last real push for gun control. All they will get is a flimsy weak system that won't accomplice anything and will have to try again in 10 more years. Republicans can oppose this all they want and they'll be fine, Democrats had some fun run-ins with not wanting to fund the military during the later years of the iraq war and everyone's forgotten that. Pack this issue in your back pocket for that stump speech to rally your people on how anti obama-pelosi's communist/muslum/socialist/french/hitler agenda they are.
Eh, idk. I don't think it was something Democrats could position themselves against freely, nor were trying to before the recent wave of massacres that occurred. We had 4 years of Obama and Democrat majority in the Senate without a mention about gun control. Ultimately, they have, by accident, been given a populist mandate to do something about gun violence and people have given up on getting the Republicans to do anything besides lower taxes.
That's what it looks like to me this time around, with only political capital to be gained by the side that chooses to act, and lost by the side that chooses to not.
On April 15 2013 06:44 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:41 farvacola wrote:On April 15 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 15 2013 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Why are people opposed to a federal gun ownership registry? What difference does that make? In America people need something to be paranoid about, it is part of the "Us versus Them" mentality that occupies and rots our intelligence in this country. On April 15 2013 06:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 14 2013 10:25 Sermokala wrote:
Everyone wants background checks just like they want gun control. The devil however is in the details and I see the NRA making how those background checks work consume this wave of new gun control popularity. Its a stunning victory for the NRA from where they started out from not that long ago.
A national system tracking gun sales is the same as forcing people to register your guns with the government and allowing them to know who has guns and who/if they sold it to anyone. there physically isn't a way to make it work so that you don't have nationally registered guns and yet have a credible background check system.
People are just going to sell guns and then claim that they were stolen, then some guy down the line will "find it in the street with no serial numbers and no other way to identify which gun it is" and laugh at the system. Anything less won't have a reason to exist at all and anything more will cause the democrats to lose their spot in government to a resurgent and united republican party.
The NRA has won a victory where the only thing that is being debated is a win-win for them. what the fuck are these people. Competent? Lol The truth is gun control legislation is pissing in the wind, and avoiding the issue in the first place. Almost all massacres [like 90%] have happened in gun free zones. Gun free zones and cities with stronger gun control have more gun deaths. Regardless, you cant limit the use of guns by criminals [because by nature they will use them in illegal manners] except by reducing the amount of guns in a dramatic way. Which can only be done through extensive buy outs, and, ultimately, confiscation. There are a hundred million guns out there. It wont happen, its illiberal to try, and its populist hollow rhetoric to claim anything else. Exactly the only thing you can do to reduce gun violence is to look at the proximal causes of crime itself. Mental illness, low income mobility, drug use, etc, and orient programs to solving them [or rather, more realistically, reduce the amount of harmful legislation]. In other words, if you want a peaceful society, you must engender laws and an environment that create a peaceful and collaborative civil society. NOT rely on the Government to make it all better by fiat. This should be *the* hallmark of Liberals in America, fostering civil society and individual responsibility. But then again, Liberals in America arent actually Liberals, which we all know too well. @Gun registry question: Its an invasion of privacy, its offensive as it makes it seem as if gun owners are suspect, its pointless because anyone who would register isnt someone we need to have registered in the first place, its a centralization of power in a bloated and malevolent federal government, and it absolutely is part in parcel of gun confiscation in the long term. Practically on cue. Though Dazed_Spy is in Canada, I'd say it still applies. And what is it with these Canadian anti-government types? I never would have guessed that there even were any prior to seeing them on TL. @Dazed_Spy, hold the spit, extra actual facts and evidence please. It's for a cop. I don't even know if they actually exist in the real world to be honest, I have never seen a Canadian anywhere near as anti-government as the breed seen on the internet.
Maybe he's one of those guys that threatened to move to Canada to escape "socialist Obama," and then actually moved to Canada...
|
On April 15 2013 06:44 TotalBalanceSC2 wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 06:41 farvacola wrote:On April 15 2013 06:25 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:On April 15 2013 06:22 Mohdoo wrote:
Why are people opposed to a federal gun ownership registry? What difference does that make? In America people need something to be paranoid about, it is part of the "Us versus Them" mentality that occupies and rots our intelligence in this country. On April 15 2013 06:29 Dazed_Spy wrote:On April 14 2013 10:25 Sermokala wrote:
Everyone wants background checks just like they want gun control. The devil however is in the details and I see the NRA making how those background checks work consume this wave of new gun control popularity. Its a stunning victory for the NRA from where they started out from not that long ago.
A national system tracking gun sales is the same as forcing people to register your guns with the government and allowing them to know who has guns and who/if they sold it to anyone. there physically isn't a way to make it work so that you don't have nationally registered guns and yet have a credible background check system.
People are just going to sell guns and then claim that they were stolen, then some guy down the line will "find it in the street with no serial numbers and no other way to identify which gun it is" and laugh at the system. Anything less won't have a reason to exist at all and anything more will cause the democrats to lose their spot in government to a resurgent and united republican party.
The NRA has won a victory where the only thing that is being debated is a win-win for them. what the fuck are these people. Competent? Lol The truth is gun control legislation is pissing in the wind, and avoiding the issue in the first place. Almost all massacres [like 90%] have happened in gun free zones. Gun free zones and cities with stronger gun control have more gun deaths. Regardless, you cant limit the use of guns by criminals [because by nature they will use them in illegal manners] except by reducing the amount of guns in a dramatic way. Which can only be done through extensive buy outs, and, ultimately, confiscation. There are a hundred million guns out there. It wont happen, its illiberal to try, and its populist hollow rhetoric to claim anything else. Exactly the only thing you can do to reduce gun violence is to look at the proximal causes of crime itself. Mental illness, low income mobility, drug use, etc, and orient programs to solving them [or rather, more realistically, reduce the amount of harmful legislation]. In other words, if you want a peaceful society, you must engender laws and an environment that create a peaceful and collaborative civil society. NOT rely on the Government to make it all better by fiat. This should be *the* hallmark of Liberals in America, fostering civil society and individual responsibility. But then again, Liberals in America arent actually Liberals, which we all know too well. @Gun registry question: Its an invasion of privacy, its offensive as it makes it seem as if gun owners are suspect, its pointless because anyone who would register isnt someone we need to have registered in the first place, its a centralization of power in a bloated and malevolent federal government, and it absolutely is part in parcel of gun confiscation in the long term. Practically on cue. Though Dazed_Spy is in Canada, I'd say it still applies. And what is it with these Canadian anti-government types? I never would have guessed that there even were any prior to seeing them on TL. @Dazed_Spy, hold the spit, extra actual facts and evidence please. It's for a cop. I don't even know if they actually exist in the real world to be honest, I have never seen a Canadian anywhere near as anti-government as the breed seen on the internet.
hah! I can name one right off the bat. Stefan Molyneux, he lives in Mississauga, Ontario, Canada. He's fiercely anti-government, and believes strongly in anarcho-capitalism and voluntary association. He has a fairly large following on the web at "freedomainradio" if you want to see for yourself. Just check out his youtube videos, the most popular ones are extremely anti-state.
|
2nd Worst City in CA8938 Posts
Canada, land of the free...
... healthcare.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
structural marxism and anti-state ancaps have one similarity, their attitude toward their enemy object.
for marxists capitalist exploitation and the economy is a given structure, not something people act upon and create through their activities. (culture as superstructure to a reified economic evolution) The marxist analysis takes as starting point when the factory is already in place, and when all the technology inventions already exist. so the owner didn't really contribute to anything in that kind of view, and the concept of entrepreneur doesn't exist. the idea is that, if you cut out the owner, the factory would still run. but...the factory might not have been there in the first place.
ancaps think that in the beginning, there was people, and there was government. it's not "people made the government." it's simply, people, and external alien government from Mars sent to interfere with the ideal prior condition of people harmoniously orbiting each other's propertarian force fields. the State is a foreign object apart from society. hence the identification with The People against the state, as though these two are separate and opposing each other.
the marxist and ancaps both think that their enemy is a given, and is separate from the "good" part of society. elimination is called for instead of trying to correct and criticize how government and economic actors behave. they see their enemies as aliens that must be purged, rather than participating in the content of the economy, and the content of government.
tl;dr don't see the government as forced upon the people (this might have been the case in a monarchy or something but it is not true today). see it as an institution of collective coordination and maybe cooperation that can do good. it's not us against them.
|
Alas, that is precisely what one of them would say.  Well said though.
A (not so) small update on the state of gun legislation in the senate.
Supporters of a bipartisan proposal to expand background checks for gun sales are racing to secure Senate votes this week for what would be the most significant gun-control legislation in years.
Opponents, meantime, are raising questions about whether the measure would reduce gun violence or could have prevented the recent high-profile shootings, such as in Newtown, Conn., that motivated lawmakers to act.
Many gun-rights supporters argue that background checks do little to prevent gun violence, saying that firearms can be bought readily on the black market.
Gun-control advocates, while hailing the measure as a move in the right direction, lament a compromise that would exempt private firearm sales from the checks, including to friends and neighbors of gun owners.
"The bill is riddled with holes, and frankly it's hard to know what it's going to accomplish," said Adam Winkler, a Second Amendment expert and law professor at the University of California, Los Angeles, who widely is regarded as a moderate on the gun issue.
The two senators behind the background-check measure, Joe Manchin (D., W.Va.) and Pat Toomey (R., Pa.), said Sunday they were hoping to win enough backing from Republicans and conservative Democrats to clear the high hurdle of securing the 60 votes needed to overcome GOP opposition. Sixteen Republicans voted last week to begin debate on gun-control legislation, but fewer GOP lawmakers are expected to support the bipartisan amendment.
"It's an open question as to whether or not we have the votes," Mr. Toomey said on CNN. "I think it's going to be close."
The Senate likely will consider the background-checks amendment on Wednesday or Thursday, Mr. Toomey said Sunday. It would require all people buying guns online and at gun shows to undergo a background check through a licensed dealer. Currently, only licensed dealers have to perform background checks and keep a record of sales.
The checks are meant to ferret out drug abusers, fugitives, people with significant criminal histories and those declared mentally unfit by a court or similar body, all of whom are barred from buying guns under federal law.
Both senators have cast the amendment as a common-sense approach to prevent dangerous people from illegally acquiring guns without impeding any constitutional rights to own a firearm.
"We have a chance to save lives and not infringe on law-abiding citizens of this country, gun owners like myself and Pat," said Mr. Manchin on CBS. "We had that opportunity and God help us if we don't do it."
Messrs. Toomey and Manchin have been courting the lawmakers who largely will decide the measure's fate: the Republicans who voted last week to bring the Senate's main gun-control bill to the floor and red-state Democrats, including several up for re-election in 2014.
Mr. Manchin has met with Senate colleagues in every corner of the Capitol, discussing the background-checks proposal with Sen. John Thune (R., S.D.) in the gym, with Sens. Heidi Heitkamp (D., N.D.) and John McCain (R., Ariz.) on the Senate floor and with Sens. Lisa Murkowski (R., Alaska) and Susan Collins (R., Maine) at a joint lunch honoring Mr. McCain last week, according to his staff.
On Sunday, Mr. McCain told CNN that he was "very favorably disposed" toward the measure, while Ms. Collins told NBC News on Saturday that she plans to support the proposal.
Mr. Manchin also penned handwritten notes to about 25 senators, both Republicans and Democrats, affixed to fact sheets outlining the proposal to be distributed to lawmakers on the Senate floor, his aide said.
Race for Support Before Key Gun Vote
|
No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans.
|
On April 15 2013 08:35 oneofthem wrote:
structural marxism and anti-state ancaps have one similarity, their attitude toward their enemy object.
for marxists capitalist exploitation and the economy is a given structure, not something people act upon and create through their activities. (culture as superstructure to a reified economic evolution) The marxist analysis takes as starting point when the factory is already in place, and when all the technology inventions already exist. so the owner didn't really contribute to anything in that kind of view, and the concept of entrepreneur doesn't exist. the idea is that, if you cut out the owner, the factory would still run. but...the factory might not have been there in the first place.
ancaps think that in the beginning, there was people, and there was government. it's not "people made the government." it's simply, people, and external alien government from Mars sent to interfere with the ideal prior condition of people harmoniously orbiting each other's propertarian force fields. the State is a foreign object apart from society. hence the identification with The People against the state, as though these two are separate and opposing each other.
the marxist and ancaps both think that their enemy is a given, and is separate from the "good" part of society. elimination is called for instead of trying to correct and criticize how government and economic actors behave. they see their enemies as aliens that must be purged, rather than participating in the content of the economy, and the content of government.
tl;dr don't see the government as forced upon the people (this might have been the case in a monarchy or something but it is not true today). see it as an institution of collective coordination and maybe cooperation that can do good. it's not us against them. Uhh...anarchists do not think the Government fell in from the sky. Nor does your long winded straw man imply your tldr, which just comes out of no where. You havent substantiated the legitimacy and non violent relationship of the Government to the people, you just declare it. You havent substantiated it because you cant.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
my perspective is basically informed by the idea that there are multiple paths of justification to political thought, each akin to a different sense organ, and they are not necessarily complete or commensurable. for example, a rights based system can specify all the rights in the world, but it does not specify what actions people will take, and thus cannot account for a particular state of society. in contrast, a goods theory starts with a state of society, but does not speak the language of rights which is how social actors deal with each other, at least in the west. there's quite a bit more on this, but it's a bit tedious to get into.
for your response though. yes, historically states have risen out of domination by chieftans etc organic hierarchical systems, but there is also at least the potential for nonviolent government.
the reason why so many people find social contract theory appealing is precisely in that it offers an account of how such a voluntary government can have binding power. communitarian minded people would prefer the idea of the organic community, which is imagined as a participatory "Us".
let's take the communitarian's idea of participatory democracy and throw into it an anti-statist libertarian. this guy then is not participating, and it is precisely because of this nonparticipation that the state is separate from him. if the anti-statist refuse ot participate in any effort of collective action, then he's probably tautologically right always. but it's a performative tautology, similar to me saying, this sentence is always right. the point of my post is to point out that a government does not have to be by nature against the people. rather, it is what the people and the government do that change their relationship.
|
On April 15 2013 10:04 oneofthem wrote:
my perspective is basically informed by the idea that there are multiple paths of justification to political thought, each akin to a different lens and they are not necessarily complete or commensurable. but it's a bit tedious to get into.
for your response though. yes, historically states have risen out of domination by chieftans etc organic hierarchical systems, but there is also at least the potential for nonviolent government.
the reason why so many people find social contract theory appealing is precisely in that it offers an account of how such a voluntary government can have binding power. communitarian minded people would prefer the idea of the organic community, which is imagined as a participatory "Us".
let's take the communitarian's idea of participatory democracy and throw into it an anti-statist libertarian. this guy then is not participating, and it is precisely because of this nonparticipation that the state is separate from him. if the anti-statist refuse ot participate in any effort of collective action, then he's probably tautologically right always. but it's a performative tautology, similar to me saying, this sentence is always right. the point of my post is to point out that a government does not have to be by nature against the people. rather, it is what the people and the government do that change their relationship.
1) There is no standard usage of the word Government that isnt explicitly, on a theoretical level included, violent. There may be some small communal level of direct democracy thats acts in a process similar to a Government in a left-anarchist society, but I wouldnt call that Government as it has no sovereignty over the territory or people. It would be nothing more than a meeting of a few individuals agreeing on voluntarily engaging in particular issues.
2) Participatory democracies are still violent in nature [precluding the above which I dont consider to be a Government, its merely an anarchist association], so long as the laws arent voluntary. It doesnt matter if I engage in the political process directly if violence is done upon me at the final issue. Nor does participatory democracy have any realistic chance of working without representation, which means despite all the proclamations that every average individual is engaging in the political process, it isnt actually true. My representative purports to act in my concert but in reality must act according to his own conscience and intellect, precluding my [and others] views and intentions.
|
On April 15 2013 09:19 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 08:35 oneofthem wrote:
structural marxism and anti-state ancaps have one similarity, their attitude toward their enemy object.
for marxists capitalist exploitation and the economy is a given structure, not something people act upon and create through their activities. (culture as superstructure to a reified economic evolution) The marxist analysis takes as starting point when the factory is already in place, and when all the technology inventions already exist. so the owner didn't really contribute to anything in that kind of view, and the concept of entrepreneur doesn't exist. the idea is that, if you cut out the owner, the factory would still run. but...the factory might not have been there in the first place.
ancaps think that in the beginning, there was people, and there was government. it's not "people made the government." it's simply, people, and external alien government from Mars sent to interfere with the ideal prior condition of people harmoniously orbiting each other's propertarian force fields. the State is a foreign object apart from society. hence the identification with The People against the state, as though these two are separate and opposing each other.
the marxist and ancaps both think that their enemy is a given, and is separate from the "good" part of society. elimination is called for instead of trying to correct and criticize how government and economic actors behave. they see their enemies as aliens that must be purged, rather than participating in the content of the economy, and the content of government.
tl;dr don't see the government as forced upon the people (this might have been the case in a monarchy or something but it is not true today). see it as an institution of collective coordination and maybe cooperation that can do good. it's not us against them. Uhh...anarchists do not think the Government fell in from the sky. Nor does your long winded straw man imply your tldr, which just comes out of no where. You havent substantiated the legitimacy and non violent relationship of the Government to the people, you just declare it. You havent substantiated it because you cant.
His reply contains far more substance than your post did, and it refrains from leveling heavy-handed fingers at those it is intended to address. And, last I checked, it was you who initiated the conversation, and aside from polemical mud like This should be *the* hallmark of Liberals in America, fostering civil society and individual responsibility. But then again, Liberals in America arent actually Liberals, which we all know too well. , your post is painfully bereft of anything more than name calling.
It is abundantly clear that there are a large number of troubling issues that face contemporary society in which the government plays a negative role. Whether it be the prevalence of lobbying, the uselessness of partisan squabble, the ubiquity of waste in spending and infrastructure, or the threat of the ever encroaching police state, there are certainly areas in which the government deserves a strong and reprimanding critique.
The issue here is one of a difference in perceived infragovernmental complicity and what I like to call the (pathetic) fallacy of the monolith. It doesn't take a genius to know that one capitalizes the word government on purpose when talking about it in a general sense; you've just rhetorically signposted that you'd very much like for the reader to see the government as this massive, well-oiled, rights smashing machine, when in fact, it is going to take far more than a mere choice in capitalization to prove such a thing. If one pays even a moderate amount of attention to DC politics and the daily functioning of the US government, it becomes abundantly clear that this machine is not really a machine at all; rather, it is a loose amalgamation of agencies and groups with fairly narrow bounds for self-interest in action that more often conflict than align with one another. If one consumes information of a particular color in excess, it may seem like a small jump to make when considering the government, that from dysfunctional association to frighteningly cancerous over-consuming monster. I, along with many others, take a look at the information available and are simply unable to make that very same jump because it relies on too much non-falsifiable speculation and a willingness to ignore the humanity at the center of the thing.
As an aside, why would anyone ever suggest that the government has a non-violent relationship with the people? The government is people too, and last I checked, where there are people interacting with other people, violence tends to follow at some point.
Edit: It now strikes me that there is a chance that you are unwilling to admit that the government does any good at all. In that case, ignore the above. You are likely beyond the pale of reason.
|
On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans.
9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry.
9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want.
|
Cayman Islands24199 Posts
On April 15 2013 10:14 Dazed_Spy wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 10:04 oneofthem wrote:
my perspective is basically informed by the idea that there are multiple paths of justification to political thought, each akin to a different lens and they are not necessarily complete or commensurable. but it's a bit tedious to get into.
for your response though. yes, historically states have risen out of domination by chieftans etc organic hierarchical systems, but there is also at least the potential for nonviolent government.
the reason why so many people find social contract theory appealing is precisely in that it offers an account of how such a voluntary government can have binding power. communitarian minded people would prefer the idea of the organic community, which is imagined as a participatory "Us".
let's take the communitarian's idea of participatory democracy and throw into it an anti-statist libertarian. this guy then is not participating, and it is precisely because of this nonparticipation that the state is separate from him. if the anti-statist refuse ot participate in any effort of collective action, then he's probably tautologically right always. but it's a performative tautology, similar to me saying, this sentence is always right. the point of my post is to point out that a government does not have to be by nature against the people. rather, it is what the people and the government do that change their relationship. 1) There is no standard usage of the word Government that isnt explicitly, on a theoretical level included, violent. There may be some small communal level of direct democracy thats acts in a process similar to a Government in a left-anarchist society, but I wouldnt call that Government as it has no sovereignty over the territory or people. It would be nothing more than a meeting of a few individuals agreeing on voluntarily engaging in particular issues. 2) Participatory democracies are still violent in nature [precluding the above which I dont consider to be a Government, its merely an anarchist association], so long as the laws arent voluntary. It doesnt matter if I engage in the political process directly if violence is done upon me at the final issue. Nor does participatory democracy have any realistic chance of working without representation, which means despite all the proclamations that every average individual is engaging in the political process, it isnt actually true. My representative purports to act in my concert but in reality must act according to his own conscience and intellect, precluding my [and others] views and intentions.
1. Typically yes, you'll start with a discussion of government as having monopoly on power and such, but we are doing analysis on a more basic level, before we have decided to give the government this power. The question is, what is a good account of government that can justify this power, and whether supporting a government is necessarily an act of oppression against some of your fellows.
2. Participatory events can happen on a large scale(internationale) and smaller scale 'participatory democracies' can turn pretty ugly, once a member decides to go fuck this and become a rebel. heck, even families can turn out really bad. Scale is not the relevant piece in the theory level discussion. It depends on the individual's own stance towards the political action/entity in question, whether she wants to be in it or go her own way. Large scale revolutions can have many people identified with it, sometimes many different versions of 'it.' the state that this revolution gives birth to can reenact the revolutionary moment of participation, and thus its founding ideology, by rituals and self representations of the state as our own creation. The american revolution for instance, has its ritualistic reenactment in our courthouses and schools through the Constitution worship thing, while commies in china sing the revolutionary anthem to justify their status as commies.
So your point of laws needing to be voluntary is clumsily put (what's voluntary is the political community itself), but it is probably a fundamental ideological need, and one that most states at least pretend to satisfy. This sentiment is already in fact enacted in reality by the mechanism of a founding mythology that allows people to identify with their legal/political institution. An American swears allegiance to the constitution would be a classic example of this ritual. Though, as the anarchist would point out, this is a ritual, an exercise in ideology. The real nature of the institution doesn't really even matter. A dictator can be a dictatorship of the people and receive fervent support. Nevertheless, even realizing this, it's still okay to believe in it as long as you are not ignoring real cases of domination. There can also be more content to participation than mere mythology, getting duped etc. it can be an act of civil ~love~ as the greeks may call it.
story time
+ Show Spoiler +
Let's take a small scale example:
i) 10 guys on an island run through by a river, separating 3 guys from the other 7.
ii)One day, a guy A said, "let's build a bridge!"
iii) 8 people on the island start a council of bridge building.
iv)2 guys said, wait a minute, we do not agree. let's have a [procedure] that decide whether to have a council or not
Now, i think it is fair to say that at step ii, that guy A is not proposing any violent action. yet, he is speaking in a collective voice, identified with an "us" that presumably speaks to everyone on the island. this collective 'us' did not receive all the support of the islanders, but still, it is by this moniker that everything that subsequently is done is carried out.
The question is, is this an act of fraud/violence? Two ways of answering this question. The short way is that, humans just have this functioning of collective action. it'd be awkward to do an opinion poll everytime you want to get people together for a party or something and only address those who said yes. You want to get people together, and the collective voice is implicitly also an invitation. upon receiving this invitation, you can reject it, or get along. It's not exactly a rationally designed process, but this is how people do things.
of course, if a guy didn't want a bridge, she would not agree to this invitation, but here she can either say, let's not, or, what is this "us" you are talking about? fuck off you silly western-islander. The first branch is someone who may not want a bridge, but may want to be a part of the community on another issue. in general, it's difficult to imagine a guy saying no in tote to every issue, that's what hermits do. on some issues, at least, we imagine that a practical interest for herself, or god forbid the horror, a concern for another, motivates a participation in the group. Now, here the decision to consider oneself a part of the group or reject it is a decision that i think should be respected. However, I just want to make the point that by merely speaking and presuming a "we", the guy proposing a bridge, and people who operate as though they are the "we", are not perpetrating a tyranny. It may become bad if the majority kick out the dissenters into shark infested waters of western island, but that's extra information. My posts above all amount to a call for people to take the invitation, rather than rejecting it and be a hermit. Because, by practical interest there will be a lot of problems like the question of bridge building that needs coordination amongst people.
(These islanders are already very enlightened by historical standards, mind you. On a more traditional island the scenario goes like this: King decides to build a bridge. Dissenter does not exist because he's already dead. )
Suppose the islanders decide by some [procedure] that they should have a council on the matter of bridge building, it happens to be convenient to have a general [procedure] that selects a council for all collective projects in the future as well.
The bridge council decides to build the bridge over the shortest crossing. that happens to be the apple yard of one Sander Spooner, who immediately objects to the bridge. Mr. Spooner says the council is just a bunch of dudes trampling over his property, with the disguise of being a government. He never agreed to the council because he was sleeping on the day of the meeting, and the other islanders forgot about him.
the other dudes say you should chill out Mr.Spooner, we just want to build a bridge over the shortest span. This bridge will benefit you as well. Well, maybe not the bridge itself, but the bridge council is also building a road to the bridge that helps your apple yard, among other things it does. So, you may object to the particular bridge site, but the procedure itself is pretty fair. The interest of wanting a bridge is fair.
What can be said here? Spooner is right that the bridge council assumed his consent, and he did not give it. However, practically, we can fairly recognize the interest of building a bridge, as well as a decision procedure that assigns sacrifice fairly. Because, sacrifice is sometimes unavoidable in society.
Is there tyranny here? Maybe there is if the council takes Mr. Spooner's apple yard without him agreeing to it, and it would be good to compensate Mr. Spooner fairly. But, let's recognize that a part of the antagonism is due to Mr. Spooner's own behavior. A different Spooner that gave further thought to the need for someone's apple yard to be quashed by the bridge would not go fuck the council, and this change of heart makes the bridge building more consensual. This good outcome would not happen if Mr. Spooner is a hardcore anti-state libertarian guy that declares war upon all collective action.
Whether the council here is exercising tyrannical power depends on whether Mr. Spooner the islander agrees to the general governing act embodied by the island's [procedure] constitution. Defending one's right to be a hermit is cool and all, but it's just much better to have a good government.
|
On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want.
You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons.
The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store.
|
On April 15 2013 12:12 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want. You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons. The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store.
? The political reason for them not keeping the records of sale/proof of the background check is that it would be a de facto national gun registry.
However I've heard a lot of people getting calls from the ATF when someone buys a ton of guns in a short period of time. I'm not entirely sure how they find out whos buying the guns but from what I hear its not that evil government system that they rage against.
|
On April 15 2013 13:19 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 12:12 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want. You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons. The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store. ? The political reason for them not keeping the records of sale/proof of the background check is that it would be a de facto national gun registry. However I've heard a lot of people getting calls from the ATF when someone buys a ton of guns in a short period of time. I'm not entirely sure how they find out whos buying the guns but from what I hear its not that evil government system that they rage against.
Gun shops keep track of who buys a gun from them. When a gun is used in a crime the police first go to the manufacture to find out the store that had it, then the store tells them who bought it. After that it is hit or miss since the person who bought it does not need to keep track of who they sold it too. I would make it so that ALL people who sell a gun would need to keep track of who they sold it too (and run a background check). I really don't see how this creates a gun registry since the time required to track any individual gun is so long it makes tracking guns in bulk pointless. You could even allow private citizens to get rid of records after 5 years (the government does not keep those records). The point would be that if someone is selling guns to criminals, you can easily find them and stop them if they end up getting used in crimes.
|
On April 15 2013 13:42 DeltaX wrote:Show nested quote +On April 15 2013 13:19 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 12:12 DeltaX wrote:On April 15 2013 10:36 Sermokala wrote:On April 15 2013 08:48 {CC}StealthBlue wrote:
No potential presidential nominee, excluding certain persons, want to be caught blocking legislation that is supported by almost 9 out of 10 Americans. 9 out of 10 Americans being for "background checks" doesn't mean anything. Liberals will expect something to actually happen from it and conservatives won't want a national gun registry. 9 out of 10 Americans could want ice cream but that doesn't help anyone on giveing them the icecream that they want. You can have universal background checks without a national gun registry, it just requires sellers to keep the records of the sale/proof of the background check no matter who they are. Unfortunately I don't see that happening for political reasons. The current bill of closing one loophole might work, but I'm not sure if it will stop the situation where someone just loads up their car with guns and drives around selling them to random people on the street who prolly can't buy them in a store. ? The political reason for them not keeping the records of sale/proof of the background check is that it would be a de facto national gun registry. However I've heard a lot of people getting calls from the ATF when someone buys a ton of guns in a short period of time. I'm not entirely sure how they find out whos buying the guns but from what I hear its not that evil government system that they rage against. Gun shops keep track of who buys a gun from them. When a gun is used in a crime the police first go to the manufacture to find out the store that had it, then the store tells them who bought it. After that it is hit or miss since the person who bought it does not need to keep track of who they sold it too. I would make it so that ALL people who sell a gun would need to keep track of who they sold it too (and run a background check). I really don't see how this creates a gun registry since the time required to track any individual gun is so long it makes tracking guns in bulk pointless. You could even allow private citizens to get rid of records after 5 years (the government does not keep those records). The point would be that if someone is selling guns to criminals, you can easily find them and stop them if they end up getting used in crimes.
See this is the perfect example of why 9 in 10 of americans beliveing in background checks for everything is simply just bullshit filling the air waves.
What are you going to do to to people who can't keep track of their own paperwork? or if they get robbed and someone steals their papers? god forbid they "burn in a fire " and suddenly you're either criminalizing some random joe who did nothing wrong but to not keep his papers in order or you have no system for anyone to follow again.
Everyone wants background checks. No one has any idea on how to make a background check system that anyone wants.
|
Why does America regulate the trade in raisins?
THE Supreme Court has frequently handed down judgments that have shaken America to its core. Now, it has turned its attention to the raisin. A group of farmers has brought a complaint about the Agricultural Marketing Agreement Act of 1937, under which the government confiscates part of the annual national raisin crop. The Court is considering whether the arrangement is constitutional. But why is a country that generally celebrates red-blooded capitalism regulating the raisin trade in the first place?
Since the 1940s a government agency called the Raisin Administrative Committee has confiscated a portion of the annual raisin crop: 47% in 2003 and 30% in 2004, for example. Farmers who fail to surrender their raisins are fined. The committee, which is made up of 47 farmers and packers, plus one member of the public, does not pay farmers for the raisins it expropriates—indeed, it gives many away and sells others for export at low prices. After covering its costs it gives farmers the remaining profits, if there are any.
The stated aim of this bizarre system is to preserve an “orderly” market, by determining how many raisins the domestic market can bear and then getting rid of the rest. It is unclear why raisins need this sort of central planning when the supply and demand of most products are left to market forces. Though the majority of raisin farmers were in favour of the plan when it started 65 years ago, these days many of them are unhappy about having to give away a big chunk of their crop. Nor does the system represent a good deal for consumers: the artificial raisin-scarcity created by the expropriations drives up prices, which means that Californian raisins are sometimes cheaper abroad than they are in California itself.
The raisin is not the only federally regulated fruit. In all, 30 products are bound by such “marketing orders”, which are overseen by the Department of Agriculture. The Court is to rule on the narrow question of whether the government should at least pay for the raisins it snatches, but its decision could open the way to a wider overhaul of the system. The evidence is that unregulated trade in fruits can prosper without the need for federal involvement. Citrus farmers, for instance, recently scrapped a similar system and seem to be coping inside the free market. There seems little reason not to do the same for the raisin.
Link
Raisin growers unite!
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
