|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
On September 08 2018 00:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 00:27 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 23:38 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 23:16 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 22:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:On September 07 2018 03:41 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
The statistics cited most frequently here include gun suicides, so I’m skeptical. Just because others draw and warn without any commitment to fire if necessary does not make personal and home defense any less valid, regardless.
But you’re Canadian and have different societal expectations and norms. I can understand that. You’re taking a different trade off between safety and freedom, both as a nation and individually. The questions I first posed and really didn’t receive philosophical answers on are what I’m getting at. You think the likelihood of some loading gun and confrontation is low, but when pressed, only muster statistical likelihood of armed attacker and statistical likelihood of being killed by a gun. I’m glad you live in a country whose laws are in step with your inclinations, like many in Europe.
I’m not seeking to export the American character (or one interpretation of it) overseas, or hell, even to change minds about self defense and castle doctrine. I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting. Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective. I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people. I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it. I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible". to apply your logic in a different scenario; if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person No, I mean government being unduly overprotective of its citizens and interfering in their personal choice. Govern traditionally means seeing after the affairs of state, policies of all kinds, state actions against other states. It doesn't specifically or exclusively refer to some duty to make sure its citizens cannot successfully commit suicide, or that humans are so (pardon the pun) ungovernable that a political group must make better choices for them in their own interest. I used "utopian" to refer to somebody's contention of exactly 0 more mass shootings or school shootings. Even Norway can't manage that feat. It's a utopian dream. Responsibility actually implies that it's possible to abdicate responsibility, with some corresponding personal cost or societal cost. You should know this ... your interpretation of government burden involves greater responsibility with its citizens individual choice ... also implying possible failures in its responsibility. according to your first sentence the government should do nothing about anything because it inteferes with personal choice. the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible. no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0. we are aiming to reduce deaths in general, something that can easily be done in america and has already been done in other countries, as long as people accept that for the benefit of society you may need to make some sacrifices. if you dont want to make those sacrifices then i suggest you think of some solutions. at the moment all ive seen you do is create nonsensical arguments about defending against tyranny or the need for self defense (both points that have been dismantled in this thread already) and fail to comment on how you would actually change things. failing to provide any ideas simply means one thing, you dont have any ideas on how to make a positive change. you only know what you dont want to change, your individual rights to bear arms. According to my first sentence, government can do a great deal of harm when it oversteps its authority to police crime and sentence lawbreakers and enforce its regulation and wants to overinvolve itself in citizens choices. I remind you that you're responding to a quote chain that has two important contentions: That statement + Show Spoiler +I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. is really fucking heartless. and What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Please don't read both of those and conclude (1) no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0, when he asked for the plan to reduce something related--school/mass public shootings--to zero or (2) I'm cherry picking gun suicides + Show Spoiler +On September 07 2018 23:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its funny how he keeps cherry picking the gun suicide point as his example for why governments have no place in regulating guns. the suicide by guns issue is by no means the only reason for gun control , when he literally excerpted the three sentences from a 18-sentence response dealing with specifically gun suicides. Onto the rest of your post: the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible. It's not up to government to take action on behalf of the citizens. That is a debated point here. It's up to citizens to debate and elect representatives to government to take some actions and not others, or no actions at all in favor or against gun control. When I talk about keeping gun protections guaranteed by the second amendment in place, I mean that to contradict "it is in Americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible." No, it is in America's interest to narrowly tailor gun regulations to help keep them out of the hands of children and mentally unstable young adults while also protecting lawful gun-owning citizens rights. I think the political groups are influenced by lobbyists, both gun industry types, and gun control groups. Citizens form groups to lobby their government for action. Corporations also lobby their government for actions favorable to them. I see a great deal of opposition between "its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens" and "political groups are not making better choices in their own interests." Political groups are formed and managed to make political decisions in their own interest. The conflict and compromise between them form the decisions of government, restricted by controls on what government can do. That's why I like debates among citizens in the public square without broad-based calls on government to "reduce gun violence as much as possible" and "its up to the government to take action on behalf of its citizens." The groups must debate the best cause of action, including trade-offs on individual rights and liberties, before calling on government to just 'do something.' The circumspect look shows governments frequently take action that does absolutely nothing positive, and quite a few things negative, and gets excused because at least they "did something." basically youre saying you dont trust the people you elect to make educated decisions for your country and to keep the interests of your citizens at heart. therefore the responsibility falls on the citizens themselves to come to a consensus before tossing legislation work to the government?
Yes, you're very close here. You should attempt to elect the most clear-thinking inspired man or woman across all the issues. Don't simply trust them to make educated decisions on their own afterwards, hold them to account with the broader debate happening in town halls and among communities they represent. Once in power and while running for office, they are subject to lobbying campaigns from corporations and all kinds of special interest groups with the means to reward them for corruption of power. I think a great understanding of human nature basically demands you bring your representatives to account for representing your views, just as civics demands you share and articulate your views with others in your community.
your cynical view of your government makes it clear why youre so afraid of a tyrannical government.
as for your idea that a debate amongst citizens must be had before governments take action, its quite clear to me that you once again do not understand how stupid it is to place so much expectation on individuals.
you have people that dont even vote in elections. then you have people who vote but dunno wtf theyre voting for. then you have people that are severely uneducated/misinformed etc and therefore should not be trusted to make decisions that impact anything but themselves.
the very biggest flaw with democracy is that you cant overrule a stupid population. yet your solution is to try and find an answer at the lowest tier of society rather than let the people who were chosen to make educated decisions for you do their jobs? this is wishful thinking at its finest.
as for you cherry picking arguments, just because you specifically replied to a point about suicide doesnt mean you can neglect every other point made in relation to gun control lol. and the 0 death toll thing was an obvious hyperbole. interpreting that literally is either an attempt to troll or to steer the discussion away from points you dont have sensible rebuttals for.
I think you're talking about one rather bright dividing line between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think liberals are too trusting and optimistic about the judgement of people elected to power, and liberals think conservatives are too distrusting and pessimistic about the judgement of their representatives. I am all for civics education! How can representatives represent if they don't see your vote? Don't count me among the crowd that's happy with civic disengagement. We can even agree on that need, despite not agreeing on almost everything else that matters!
|
On September 08 2018 01:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2018 00:42 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2018 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2018 00:14 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2018 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:
If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon. If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers. It is just a tactic to stall discussion that isn’t based on the merit of the accurate use of phrases and terms. There hasn’t been a real, serious push to ban assault weapons or any type of gun since the 1990s. But to this day, we still argue about the accurate use of a term for a federal law that will never exist in our life time. It’s a smoke screen. I don't know what you consider a "real serious push" or why that matters to the basic concept of people having some basic knowledge about what they are regulating. No doubt it can be and is used as a delay tactic, but that's only because there is an inexplicable refusal to squash it by gaining some understanding by those it's used on. It's not like people expect anyone to be able to disassemble, clean and reassemble an AR-15 while blindfolded, just know the difference between a clip and a magazine so you don't do something ineffective and ridiculous like banning 100-round clips. You'll lose any hope of making progress with an approach like that. A federal gun law that had a snowballs chance in hell of passing. None of those have existed since the 1990s. Especially when it comes to assault weapons. It is a dead issue on the federal level. On the state level, states can do whatever they want, but no ban is going to remove the existence of those weapons from other states. And the easiest way to bridge that “knowledge gap” would be for people with the powerful knowledge about fire arms to help with the legislation. But it is pretty obvious that isn’t the goal of folks who engage with the “they don’t understand the thing they are regulating” style of discussion. I'm presenting that argument and it's very much in the interest of hoping that people that really want better regulations recognize how refusing to learn is shooting themselves in the foot. Not merely to try to grind progress to a halt, but because I'd like to see better regulations for guns. It's actually a pretty common perspective among gun owners. Hence the widespread support for various stricter gun regulations. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/589849342/npr-poll-after-parkland-number-of-americans-who-want-gun-restrictions-grows@iamthedave ty  The problem with this is that there is wide spread support, but the invested, hard line, anti-gun law base drives the discussion. For an example, the smart gun: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/08/473581490/episode-694-the-gun-that-wouldnt-shootThis was never going to be a regulation, but was an invention that someone wanted to bring to market. It was a simple concept that in theory could have made guns safer to own for people who wanted to use the tech. But the smart gun, as a concept, was chased out of the entire market by gun advocates who couldn’t allow thing to come to market. It simply cannot exist anywhere, because that might lead to some sort of requirement by states to have that system on some types of fire arms. Or something. Best to keep the status quo. And this is the problem right now as it was in the 1990s, the reasonable gun owners are not in control of the discussion and seem to not want to ever control the discussion. And that has been the dynamic for like 30 years. I grew up around guns and this narrative arm wrestling about who knows enough to write gun laws has been around for my entire life. It one of the three to five wells hard line gun advocate s go to over and over. Because they love the status quo and know how to kill any discussion about effective gun laws.
There's a few different problems at play.
Reasonable gun owners aren't lacking control of the conversation because they don't want it (though like many different situations in this country, the status quo is acceptable enough for those with the power to change it so there's not much motivation anyway), but because our political system doesn't work that way.
|
On September 08 2018 01:18 Plansix wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 01:05 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2018 00:42 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2018 00:22 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 08 2018 00:14 Plansix wrote:On September 08 2018 00:08 GreenHorizons wrote:On September 07 2018 23:58 Plansix wrote:
If you keep arguing over the minor details, you never discuss the substance of the matter. You can stall out a discussion for like 30 years if you just argue about what is or is not an assault weapon. If you don't you end up with a regulations that don't regulate what you meant to target. Doesn't seem like an unduly burden for advocates of increased regulation, or at minimum the writers. It is just a tactic to stall discussion that isn’t based on the merit of the accurate use of phrases and terms. There hasn’t been a real, serious push to ban assault weapons or any type of gun since the 1990s. But to this day, we still argue about the accurate use of a term for a federal law that will never exist in our life time. It’s a smoke screen. I don't know what you consider a "real serious push" or why that matters to the basic concept of people having some basic knowledge about what they are regulating. No doubt it can be and is used as a delay tactic, but that's only because there is an inexplicable refusal to squash it by gaining some understanding by those it's used on. It's not like people expect anyone to be able to disassemble, clean and reassemble an AR-15 while blindfolded, just know the difference between a clip and a magazine so you don't do something ineffective and ridiculous like banning 100-round clips. You'll lose any hope of making progress with an approach like that. A federal gun law that had a snowballs chance in hell of passing. None of those have existed since the 1990s. Especially when it comes to assault weapons. It is a dead issue on the federal level. On the state level, states can do whatever they want, but no ban is going to remove the existence of those weapons from other states. And the easiest way to bridge that “knowledge gap” would be for people with the powerful knowledge about fire arms to help with the legislation. But it is pretty obvious that isn’t the goal of folks who engage with the “they don’t understand the thing they are regulating” style of discussion. I'm presenting that argument and it's very much in the interest of hoping that people that really want better regulations recognize how refusing to learn is shooting themselves in the foot. Not merely to try to grind progress to a halt, but because I'd like to see better regulations for guns. It's actually a pretty common perspective among gun owners. Hence the widespread support for various stricter gun regulations. https://www.npr.org/2018/03/02/589849342/npr-poll-after-parkland-number-of-americans-who-want-gun-restrictions-grows@iamthedave ty The problem with this is that there is wide spread support, but the invested, hard line, anti-gun law base drives the discussion. For an example, the smart gun: https://www.npr.org/sections/money/2016/04/08/473581490/episode-694-the-gun-that-wouldnt-shootThis was never going to be a regulation, but was an invention that someone wanted to bring to market. It was a simple concept that in theory could have made guns safer to own for people who wanted to use the tech. But the smart gun, as a concept, was chased out of the entire market by gun advocates who couldn’t allow thing to come to market. It simply cannot exist anywhere, because that might lead to some sort of requirement by states to have that system on some types of fire arms. Or something. Best to keep the status quo. And this is the problem right now as it was in the 1990s, the reasonable gun owners are not in control of the discussion and seem to not want to ever control the discussion. And that has been the dynamic for like 30 years. I grew up around guns and this narrative arm wrestling about who knows enough to write gun laws has been around for my entire life. It one of the three to five wells hard line gun advocate s go to over and over. Because they love the status quo and know how to kill any discussion about effective gun laws.
And it's not like we haven't had a bunch of reasonable ideas for gun legislation in this thread alone. But hardliners always manage to turn it into a discussion about some minute detail of the definition of "assault weapon", even if no one talked about that beforehands. Because that is easy for them.
The problem is that "no change to legislation" is a hard standpoint to defend. But that is what people like Danglars ultimately want. So instead, the point always becomes "not this change!", and if that would be too hard to argue "Not that other change that some random dude proposed in the 90s"
And it is always about a "ban". No one is realistically talking about gun "bans". Almost every other country has some regulations that allow people to own guns. But once again, it is easy to argue against a "ban" by providing a single example of a situation where a gun might be useful. And harder to argue against "regulation".
So i would like to see an honest assessment of the situation (From Danglars or any other person who feels like he fits in that camp)
Is there any problem with the general gun situation in the US? (Deaths from firearms at its most general)
If yes, what solution to that problem do you propose.
Is there any problem with the mass shootings in the US?
If yes, what solution to that problem do you propose.
|
On September 08 2018 01:30 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 00:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 08 2018 00:27 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 23:38 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 23:16 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 22:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 04:07 JimmiC wrote:
[quote]
I don't think it is low, I think it is infinitesimal that there would be a situation where a person would not only bee attacked in their home but have time to retrieve and load their safely stored firearm and separate stored ammo. Now the guy who keeps a loaded handgun under his pillow or dresser drawer, has the same tiny chance of being invaded as me, and has a higher chance of being shot, because he will be seen as most of a threat than me with my hands up, and also has a very tiny chance of killing the intruder (something I would not like to do over theft), but that there is a real chance of an accidental shooting.
Also, suicide by gun numbers are real, many of those people would be alive, sure they would try something else, but likely something much less effective.
I mean I too am glad I live in a country that limits peoples freedoms in this way. I understand that the price of a few guys getting to feel like big men is worth the cost of not letting guns into the hands of many dangerous people.
I'm also happy with living in a place with very few guns because I am completely capable of taking care of myself. And I'd far rather bet on myself being tougher then dealing with the great equalizer of a gun where I have as much chance coming out on top as a 10 year old with his/hers. Hell I only have a advantage on a 3 year old because they probably don't know how to hold it.
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest. That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible". to apply your logic in a different scenario; if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person No, I mean government being unduly overprotective of its citizens and interfering in their personal choice. Govern traditionally means seeing after the affairs of state, policies of all kinds, state actions against other states. It doesn't specifically or exclusively refer to some duty to make sure its citizens cannot successfully commit suicide, or that humans are so (pardon the pun) ungovernable that a political group must make better choices for them in their own interest. I used "utopian" to refer to somebody's contention of exactly 0 more mass shootings or school shootings. Even Norway can't manage that feat. It's a utopian dream. Responsibility actually implies that it's possible to abdicate responsibility, with some corresponding personal cost or societal cost. You should know this ... your interpretation of government burden involves greater responsibility with its citizens individual choice ... also implying possible failures in its responsibility. according to your first sentence the government should do nothing about anything because it inteferes with personal choice. the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible. no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0. we are aiming to reduce deaths in general, something that can easily be done in america and has already been done in other countries, as long as people accept that for the benefit of society you may need to make some sacrifices. if you dont want to make those sacrifices then i suggest you think of some solutions. at the moment all ive seen you do is create nonsensical arguments about defending against tyranny or the need for self defense (both points that have been dismantled in this thread already) and fail to comment on how you would actually change things. failing to provide any ideas simply means one thing, you dont have any ideas on how to make a positive change. you only know what you dont want to change, your individual rights to bear arms. According to my first sentence, government can do a great deal of harm when it oversteps its authority to police crime and sentence lawbreakers and enforce its regulation and wants to overinvolve itself in citizens choices. I remind you that you're responding to a quote chain that has two important contentions: That statement + Show Spoiler +I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. is really fucking heartless. and What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Please don't read both of those and conclude (1) no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0, when he asked for the plan to reduce something related--school/mass public shootings--to zero or (2) I'm cherry picking gun suicides + Show Spoiler +On September 07 2018 23:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its funny how he keeps cherry picking the gun suicide point as his example for why governments have no place in regulating guns. the suicide by guns issue is by no means the only reason for gun control , when he literally excerpted the three sentences from a 18-sentence response dealing with specifically gun suicides. Onto the rest of your post: the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible. It's not up to government to take action on behalf of the citizens. That is a debated point here. It's up to citizens to debate and elect representatives to government to take some actions and not others, or no actions at all in favor or against gun control. When I talk about keeping gun protections guaranteed by the second amendment in place, I mean that to contradict "it is in Americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible." No, it is in America's interest to narrowly tailor gun regulations to help keep them out of the hands of children and mentally unstable young adults while also protecting lawful gun-owning citizens rights. I think the political groups are influenced by lobbyists, both gun industry types, and gun control groups. Citizens form groups to lobby their government for action. Corporations also lobby their government for actions favorable to them. I see a great deal of opposition between "its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens" and "political groups are not making better choices in their own interests." Political groups are formed and managed to make political decisions in their own interest. The conflict and compromise between them form the decisions of government, restricted by controls on what government can do. That's why I like debates among citizens in the public square without broad-based calls on government to "reduce gun violence as much as possible" and "its up to the government to take action on behalf of its citizens." The groups must debate the best cause of action, including trade-offs on individual rights and liberties, before calling on government to just 'do something.' The circumspect look shows governments frequently take action that does absolutely nothing positive, and quite a few things negative, and gets excused because at least they "did something." basically youre saying you dont trust the people you elect to make educated decisions for your country and to keep the interests of your citizens at heart. therefore the responsibility falls on the citizens themselves to come to a consensus before tossing legislation work to the government? Yes, you're very close here. You should attempt to elect the most clear-thinking inspired man or woman across all the issues. Don't simply trust them to make educated decisions on their own afterwards, hold them to account with the broader debate happening in town halls and among communities they represent. Once in power and while running for office, they are subject to lobbying campaigns from corporations and all kinds of special interest groups with the means to reward them for corruption of power. I think a great understanding of human nature basically demands you bring your representatives to account for representing your views, just as civics demands you share and articulate your views with others in your community. Show nested quote +your cynical view of your government makes it clear why youre so afraid of a tyrannical government.
as for your idea that a debate amongst citizens must be had before governments take action, its quite clear to me that you once again do not understand how stupid it is to place so much expectation on individuals.
you have people that dont even vote in elections. then you have people who vote but dunno wtf theyre voting for. then you have people that are severely uneducated/misinformed etc and therefore should not be trusted to make decisions that impact anything but themselves.
the very biggest flaw with democracy is that you cant overrule a stupid population. yet your solution is to try and find an answer at the lowest tier of society rather than let the people who were chosen to make educated decisions for you do their jobs? this is wishful thinking at its finest.
as for you cherry picking arguments, just because you specifically replied to a point about suicide doesnt mean you can neglect every other point made in relation to gun control lol. and the 0 death toll thing was an obvious hyperbole. interpreting that literally is either an attempt to troll or to steer the discussion away from points you dont have sensible rebuttals for. I think you're talking about one rather bright dividing line between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think liberals are too trusting and optimistic about the judgement of people elected to power, and liberals think conservatives are too distrusting and pessimistic about the judgement of their representatives. I am all for civics education! How can representatives represent if they don't see your vote? Don't count me among the crowd that's happy with civic disengagement. We can even agree on that need, despite not agreeing on almost everything else that matters!
im not saying politicians are all perfect human beings that will fulfil their role well. theyre not and they dont. however they are unfortunately more suitable and capable for the job rather than the vast majority of the remaining population. your idea that the general public should decide on these matters before the government is unrealistic and is basically asking for no discussion to take place at all.
you also still havent addressed how, regardless of where the discussion takes place, how you would propose changes. despite your fear of your own governments incompetence, previous points made in this thread about tyrannical governments and flaws in the self defense argument still stand. the government becoming tyrannical just wont happen, thus making the 2nd amendment obsolete, and there is enough evidence to suggest the tradeoff for firearms as self defense with general public safety is not worth it.
|
On September 08 2018 02:19 evilfatsh1t wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 01:30 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 00:56 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 08 2018 00:27 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 23:38 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 23:16 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 22:52 evilfatsh1t wrote:On September 07 2018 22:26 Danglars wrote:On September 07 2018 12:28 ShambhalaWar wrote:On September 07 2018 05:02 Danglars wrote:
[quote]
I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. This is not big brother nanny state. The government does not have a responsibility to make suicide as difficult as possible, damn the effects on the rest.
That statement is really fucking heartless. The government is a representation of the people, and our people do have a responsibility to look after each other... and if we don't then we are a weak and largely worthless nation. Together we stand divided we fall, right? If we are "every man for themselves" there is nothing we can do in the world... just only do for ourselves, which is incredibly small. Since gun ownership is something you want, then the responsibility should fall (not completely) but largely to you and other gun owners to be safe with your firearms and the sale of your firearms, do you agree? What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Propose something to fix the problem that exists because guns get into the hands of people who would commit mass murders. Look after each other in communities and voluntary associations? For sure. Then your point fails, because I said it wasn’t the governments job to be my nanny or my brothers keeper. You’re aiming for “fucking heartless” (thanks for that by the way haha) and landed in a field of ignorance. “Won’t have to deal with anymore school mass public shootings” is equivalent to “won’t have to deal with any more fatal car accidents” or “won’t have to deal with anymore infant mortality.” I’m not in the business of living out utopian fantasies. You have free speech instead of speech codes, and more people feel insulted and offended. It’s a trade off. I’m picking the ones I think better helps the interests of a diverse society struggling on and their government not turning tyrannical. I’m not foolish enough to spell out an 11-point plan for fixing society just because it’s trendy for my ideological opposites to make grandiose pronouncements of the kind. And since you talked responsibility, it is the responsibility of each gun owner to secure their firearms against use by unstable teenagers, and the responsibility of school officials to report violent and threatening individuals to the police. Both of those didn’t happen. Society should hold the respective persons accountable. That’s one start. And the second we call down for less of the profanity and hyperbole, maybe we tackle the cultural and political problems next. if by nanny you mean "caring for their citizens' wellbeing", then yes, that is literally the governments job. do you even know what the word govern means?and you still dont see the hypocrisy of your own words, just like sst didnt. you claim to not want to live in some utopian fantasy, and then you turn around and say that each gun owner should be responsible for their own firearms to reduce gun violence. that itself is a fkin utopian fantasy, one that we can see is not being realised everyday. society should indeed hold those responsible for this, legislators and the nra who think along the same lines as you do and say "this is an issue with individuals being irresponsible". to apply your logic in a different scenario; if you ever have employees that routinely fail to meet their obligations due to poor management systems youd rather yell at all of them to get their shit together rather than try to improve the system? please tell me you dont work in management. you dont seem to understand the flaw in the logic of hoping everyone can be trusted to be a responsible person No, I mean government being unduly overprotective of its citizens and interfering in their personal choice. Govern traditionally means seeing after the affairs of state, policies of all kinds, state actions against other states. It doesn't specifically or exclusively refer to some duty to make sure its citizens cannot successfully commit suicide, or that humans are so (pardon the pun) ungovernable that a political group must make better choices for them in their own interest. I used "utopian" to refer to somebody's contention of exactly 0 more mass shootings or school shootings. Even Norway can't manage that feat. It's a utopian dream. Responsibility actually implies that it's possible to abdicate responsibility, with some corresponding personal cost or societal cost. You should know this ... your interpretation of government burden involves greater responsibility with its citizens individual choice ... also implying possible failures in its responsibility. according to your first sentence the government should do nothing about anything because it inteferes with personal choice. the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible. no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0. we are aiming to reduce deaths in general, something that can easily be done in america and has already been done in other countries, as long as people accept that for the benefit of society you may need to make some sacrifices. if you dont want to make those sacrifices then i suggest you think of some solutions. at the moment all ive seen you do is create nonsensical arguments about defending against tyranny or the need for self defense (both points that have been dismantled in this thread already) and fail to comment on how you would actually change things. failing to provide any ideas simply means one thing, you dont have any ideas on how to make a positive change. you only know what you dont want to change, your individual rights to bear arms. According to my first sentence, government can do a great deal of harm when it oversteps its authority to police crime and sentence lawbreakers and enforce its regulation and wants to overinvolve itself in citizens choices. I remind you that you're responding to a quote chain that has two important contentions: That statement + Show Spoiler +I never really give much credit to people that like to change laws on guns just to make it harder for people who want to commit suicide to do so with their own gun. is really fucking heartless. and What do you propose should happen so that we as a country won't have to deal with anymore school/mass public shootings? Please don't read both of those and conclude (1) no one here has once suggested that action against gun violence will reduce the death toll to 0, when he asked for the plan to reduce something related--school/mass public shootings--to zero or (2) I'm cherry picking gun suicides + Show Spoiler +On September 07 2018 23:54 evilfatsh1t wrote:
its funny how he keeps cherry picking the gun suicide point as his example for why governments have no place in regulating guns. the suicide by guns issue is by no means the only reason for gun control , when he literally excerpted the three sentences from a 18-sentence response dealing with specifically gun suicides. Onto the rest of your post: the fact is, further gun regulation and a serious look at revision of the constitution at this point is not unduly, its overdue. your citizens arent being protected and its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens. you also elect people to represent the views of the country. political groups are not making better choices in their own interests, rather the countrys (lobbying and corruption cases aside). it is in americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible. It's not up to government to take action on behalf of the citizens. That is a debated point here. It's up to citizens to debate and elect representatives to government to take some actions and not others, or no actions at all in favor or against gun control. When I talk about keeping gun protections guaranteed by the second amendment in place, I mean that to contradict "it is in Americas interest at the moment to reduce gun violence as much as possible." No, it is in America's interest to narrowly tailor gun regulations to help keep them out of the hands of children and mentally unstable young adults while also protecting lawful gun-owning citizens rights. I think the political groups are influenced by lobbyists, both gun industry types, and gun control groups. Citizens form groups to lobby their government for action. Corporations also lobby their government for actions favorable to them. I see a great deal of opposition between "its up to the government to take action on behalf of the citizens" and "political groups are not making better choices in their own interests." Political groups are formed and managed to make political decisions in their own interest. The conflict and compromise between them form the decisions of government, restricted by controls on what government can do. That's why I like debates among citizens in the public square without broad-based calls on government to "reduce gun violence as much as possible" and "its up to the government to take action on behalf of its citizens." The groups must debate the best cause of action, including trade-offs on individual rights and liberties, before calling on government to just 'do something.' The circumspect look shows governments frequently take action that does absolutely nothing positive, and quite a few things negative, and gets excused because at least they "did something." basically youre saying you dont trust the people you elect to make educated decisions for your country and to keep the interests of your citizens at heart. therefore the responsibility falls on the citizens themselves to come to a consensus before tossing legislation work to the government? Yes, you're very close here. You should attempt to elect the most clear-thinking inspired man or woman across all the issues. Don't simply trust them to make educated decisions on their own afterwards, hold them to account with the broader debate happening in town halls and among communities they represent. Once in power and while running for office, they are subject to lobbying campaigns from corporations and all kinds of special interest groups with the means to reward them for corruption of power. I think a great understanding of human nature basically demands you bring your representatives to account for representing your views, just as civics demands you share and articulate your views with others in your community. your cynical view of your government makes it clear why youre so afraid of a tyrannical government.
as for your idea that a debate amongst citizens must be had before governments take action, its quite clear to me that you once again do not understand how stupid it is to place so much expectation on individuals.
you have people that dont even vote in elections. then you have people who vote but dunno wtf theyre voting for. then you have people that are severely uneducated/misinformed etc and therefore should not be trusted to make decisions that impact anything but themselves.
the very biggest flaw with democracy is that you cant overrule a stupid population. yet your solution is to try and find an answer at the lowest tier of society rather than let the people who were chosen to make educated decisions for you do their jobs? this is wishful thinking at its finest.
as for you cherry picking arguments, just because you specifically replied to a point about suicide doesnt mean you can neglect every other point made in relation to gun control lol. and the 0 death toll thing was an obvious hyperbole. interpreting that literally is either an attempt to troll or to steer the discussion away from points you dont have sensible rebuttals for. I think you're talking about one rather bright dividing line between conservatives and liberals. Conservatives think liberals are too trusting and optimistic about the judgement of people elected to power, and liberals think conservatives are too distrusting and pessimistic about the judgement of their representatives. I am all for civics education! How can representatives represent if they don't see your vote? Don't count me among the crowd that's happy with civic disengagement. We can even agree on that need, despite not agreeing on almost everything else that matters! im not saying politicians are all perfect human beings that will fulfil their role well. theyre not and they dont. however they are unfortunately more suitable and capable for the job rather than the vast majority of the remaining population. your idea that the general public should decide on these matters before the government is unrealistic and is basically asking for no discussion to take place at all.
You took issue that it seems I do not trust elected politicians, then refer back to your distrust of their perfection. It really sounds like we're in agreement on that point. You shouldn't trust their judgement, you should hold them to account to represented their electing body of people.
Politicians are taken out of the citizenry. Maybe it's name recognition or power structures that help their election. It's impossible to talk about the politician class as "more suitable and capable for the job" rather than the vast majority of the remaining population. It's the citizen legislator. They're not born into better judgement, they're elected among their peers. It isn't a two tier population with good borders of those sufficiently enlightened to lead and then the vast majority of the rest. I'm not of the opinion that ascending to an elected position means you're all that much better than the people you're elected to represent. Hopefully they develop and use skills of delegation and pick good policy craftsmen, but just as the people electing them err, so too do the politicians.
you also still havent addressed how, regardless of where the discussion takes place, how you would propose changes. despite your fear of your own governments incompetence, previous points made in this thread about tyrannical governments and flaws in the self defense argument still stand.
Basically, better enforcement of existing law, with an eye to the many flubs made in mass shootings to date. A man legally prevented from owning a weapon was not reported by the Air Force to the authorities. The Parkland shooter was known to the school for making violent threats against classmates, threats to kill his girlfriend's friends, threats to kill his girlfriend's new boyfriend, was known by the FBI to want to become a school shooter, he'd put a gun to other people's heads, several departments didn't communicate with the other ... all circumstances that could lead to arrest or forms of supervision. Absolutely preventable. There's my first suggestion.
the government becoming tyrannical just wont happen, thus making the 2nd amendment obsolete, and there is enough evidence to suggest the tradeoff for firearms as self defense with general public safety is not worth it.
Pardon me that in a debate forum, I don't just take your word for what will and won't happen. I also question your evidence and your rationale for tradeoffs. I understand you've come to certain conclusions about what's likely to happen and what should be taken to guard against it, and what is worth and not worth it, but we're debating those lines, and you can't just sit up and say what "just wont happen" like you're infallible. Or, you could simply reverse your claims as follows to illustrate the trouble
the government staying limited and benevolent just wont happen, thus making your argument obsolete, and there is enough evidence to suggest the tradeoff for firearms as self defense with general public safety is absolutely worth it
|
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines".
also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law.
and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place
|
On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines".
I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to.
also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law.
Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know!
and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place
How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses.
But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny.
|
|
|
Also, even the US only protects some forms of hate speech.
|
On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines". I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to. also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law. Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know! and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses. But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender?
Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't?
I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha".
|
|
|
|
|
On September 08 2018 04:28 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 04:23 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:10 JimmiC wrote:On September 08 2018 03:59 Danglars wrote:On September 08 2018 03:11 evilfatsh1t wrote:
umm...do you understand how your political system works? aside from trumps' very questionable appointments, typically individuals that are experts in their certain field are appointed to provide input in relation to their field. the fact that they take the job and they studied that area make them much more suitable and capable than your average barista. i mean...this kind of logic is like "why should we listen to nasa about space travel? what makes them more qualified?" or "why should we listen to doctors about medicine? im pretty sure i know better about vaccines". I stated exactly the problems I had with your characterization of the political system in my last post. It is in fact very different that listening to doctors about medicine. And I don't know about you, but I might trust the average barista more than I trust Trump, understand? So in fact for our differences, I'd discuss the points I raised previously, because nothing has changed here. We both know every disastrous and great legislation both have their starts in someone with the label of "expert in ..." and this is mere restatement of the previous post I responded to. also, name me any single piece of legislation that was discussed by your citizens before it was passed in government. zero.
whether you like it or not, the most influence citizens have outside of actual elections is voicing approval. no government in the world has ever asked the general population to take part in the discussion of the particulars for any implementation of any law. Obamacare. Citizens tossed out all the great majority of politicians that voted for it. Citizens had discussed socialized medicine, subsidies, and various carrot-and-stick models for a very long time before that. See the previous debate over Hillarycare back in the 90s. In fact, legislation passed without prior citizen input is one of those telling signs for a tyrannical government, you know! and since you seem to think a tyrannical government is still a possibility why dont you highlight us a picture of how exactly that scenario could come to be and how it would play out. you want to be part of the discussion when your government passes laws right? surely then you have at least the bare minimum ability to guess how things would play out in hypothetical scenarios? id be very interested to hear your story of how the general public would heroically overthrow the entire US goverment and why such actions may have been required in the first place How about a distant government in Washington DC votes an ordinary bill to make gun ownership illegal, and a friendly supreme court adopts some of the views espoused in the minority opinion of Heller and says the second amendment doesn't really mean what you think it means. There's one. How about your state declares that racism against whites isn't really racism, and they owe a reparation tax, and a friendly court agrees that there's no constitutional violations because of historical discrimination. How about the same cultural allies declare that free speech does not protect hate speech, and pastors disagreeing with gay marriage and private schools disagreeing with transgenderism must change their rhetoric or risk fines (or jail)? Those are several either opening shots leading down the chain of tyranny, or final conclusions to a different chain of smaller offenses. But the same problem exists as part of a fire. You don't need a great imagination to assess how a fire might start to know the need for fire extinguishing methods. It lends itself to mockery and parodies of the various doomsday scenarios, not the rational citizens recognition that an armed citizenry is the first bulwark against future government tyranny. Many countries have declared this point, usually specific to certain types of hate speech. I'm not sure how it has hurt society. Even the USA has some rules regarding hate speech. Based on this, you must be really angry at the parts of the republican party that are trying to take away the rights of women to choose on pregnancy, and the rights of people to marry whoever they want regardless of gender? Arn't you just opening yourself up for the same question phrased back to you while also being on topic while yours isn't? I mean your argument just boils down to "my hipocracy is better then yours so ha". Whats my hypocrisy? If you are specific I'll attempt to answer. If it is about individuals rights and freedoms, I'm completely ok with regulation. I think speed limits are a good thing, I'm completely fine with abortions being regulated. And I am fine with gun regulation.
You snarked that Danglers must feel bad about being pro life and against gay marriage beacuse of their non constitutional rights but had a problem with people restricting a constitutional right. Isn't the same argument that you're for gay marriage and pro choice but against the peoples right to bear arms?
|
Being pro-regulation of something does not mean you are against peoples' rights to that thing. At all.
|
|
|
On September 08 2018 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
Being pro-regulation of something does not mean you are against peoples' rights to that thing. At all.
Really? So the GOP isn't actualy in a war against women for putting regulations onto abortion services in order to shut down planned parenthoods? And putting a regulation against forceing someone to make a cake for a gay wedding doesn't make you against gay marriage?
|
|
|
On September 08 2018 04:57 JimmiC wrote:Show nested quote +On September 08 2018 04:51 Sermokala wrote:On September 08 2018 04:48 NewSunshine wrote:
Being pro-regulation of something does not mean you are against peoples' rights to that thing. At all. Really? So the GOP isn't actualy in a war against women for putting regulations onto abortion services in order to shut down planned parenthoods? And putting a regulation against forceing someone to make a cake for a gay wedding doesn't make you against gay marriage? I mean the cake thing to me is just silly. I don't understand why as a gay person you want to give you business to a guy who is that anti gay. You would think the community would want to instead support a different baker who is OK with that lifestyle. As for the "war" you speak of. I believe the GOP or at least the fundamental Christians within the party are looking to not regulate abortion but prohibit it. Which creates many problems. It is already quite regulated, you can't simply go to any store or doctor and get a quicky abortion.
All from that I would argue that the posisions are at the least similar in enough of a form that snarking someone for being for one and against the other is hypocritical when they are for one and against the other.
|
Many members of the GOP, and their supporters, have openly expressed their strong desire to "make abortion a thing of the past". So when they attack Planned Parenthood, and when they lie about how much PP has to do with abortion services in order to vilify them, they're not looking for regulation. They're looking to gut the program, and the rights they're protecting. That's not regulation to me. When people start arguing that we should make guns a thing of the past, I'll accept that equivalence.
|
Really it is just that the GOP has been more successful at restricting abortion than the Democrats have been passing gun laws. The rank and file of the GOP might not want abortion to be fully illegal, but they are comfortable with how much it is being restricted in red states and the efforts to defund planned parenthood.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
