|
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 May 13 2019 15:49 Simberto wrote:
Why does this topic always have to devolve into constitutional arguments?
Shouldn't the main question be whether something (and if yes, what?) should be done about the situation now, and not what some long-dead people might have thought about it 200 years ago? What the people who wrote the US constitution thought about militias or conscription or whatever is not really that relevant. You are treating the founding fathers as religious prophets who spread godly wisdom.
This is the difference between a rational argument and a theological argument. One cares about facts right now and tries to create knowledge, while the other tries to interpret the words of long-dead prophets and assumes that no new knowledge can ever be found, because everything worth knowing is already known and just needs to be interpreted.
Most of the laws currently protecting my rights were written by "some long-dead people." Every generation in its time thinks it really knows how to better run society. The fact that they fail and spread suffering is the reason for that deadly phrase "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The people who happen to be alive and walking now will eventually die, and maybe we give one or two good ideas for future generations. Maybe even you happen upon the ideas, but your successors decide your ideas are disqualified because of your death. That's a sad day for society.
For the political instead of philosophical bent, it's much easier to say the old wisdom actually supports my side of the argument, rather than saying the past is irrelevant, what people are thinking today is all that matters. You rally to your side the benefit of past thought and conclusion, as well as the law and how it should be interpreted. That's a big deal.
"The facts right now" is a phrase best ascribed to demagogic populists. Be wary of any man who says the dead and books and past knowledge deserve no special consideration, but all that matters are "facts right now" and how people alive right now "[try] to create knowledge." Who cares what foundations were set that made nations last for hundreds of years? Have a debate, even have a war, over parts that weren't the best idea, but do not lightly set aside the giant edifice because some rube who happens to be walking about shows little caring about the past. There are many layers of hell below whatever one you think we're in and you're curing, and you're quite liable to fall further into it with that attitude.
|
Leaning on "old wisdom" is not necessarily a panacea. We have plenty of improved morality and new knowledge and medical and technological advancements that make 2019 different in significant ways from the late 1700s. We can start with all the new amendments and civil rights progress, and move through modern medicine, science, industry, transportation, defense, education, etc. For these same reasons, it makes sense to reexamine old law through the lens of modern thinking, see what works and what doesn't, and improve both our Constitution and our way of life. The founding fathers got a lot right, but they also got a lot wrong, and anything that's been shown to be outdated should not still reign supreme merely because it comes from some honored past.
|
On May 13 2019 16:10 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On May 13 2019 15:49 Simberto wrote:
Why does this topic always have to devolve into constitutional arguments?
Shouldn't the main question be whether something (and if yes, what?) should be done about the situation now, and not what some long-dead people might have thought about it 200 years ago? What the people who wrote the US constitution thought about militias or conscription or whatever is not really that relevant. You are treating the founding fathers as religious prophets who spread godly wisdom.
This is the difference between a rational argument and a theological argument. One cares about facts right now and tries to create knowledge, while the other tries to interpret the words of long-dead prophets and assumes that no new knowledge can ever be found, because everything worth knowing is already known and just needs to be interpreted. Most of the laws currently protecting my rights were written by "some long-dead people." Every generation in its time thinks it really knows how to better run society. The fact that they fail and spread suffering is the reason for that deadly phrase "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it." The people who happen to be alive and walking now will eventually die, and maybe we give one or two good ideas for future generations. Maybe even you happen upon the ideas, but your successors decide your ideas are disqualified because of your death. That's a sad day for society. For the political instead of philosophical bent, it's much easier to say the old wisdom actually supports my side of the argument, rather than saying the past is irrelevant, what people are thinking today is all that matters. You rally to your side the benefit of past thought and conclusion, as well as the law and how it should be interpreted. That's a big deal. "The facts right now" is a phrase best ascribed to demagogic populists. Be wary of any man who says the dead and books and past knowledge deserve no special consideration, but all that matters are "facts right now" and how people alive right now "[try] to create knowledge." Who cares what foundations were set that made nations last for hundreds of years? Have a debate, even have a war, over parts that weren't the best idea, but do not lightly set aside the giant edifice because some rube who happens to be walking about shows little caring about the past. There are many layers of hell below whatever one you think we're in and you're curing, and you're quite liable to fall further into it with that attitude.
This is an incredibly warped way to look at things. Even if "most laws protecting your rights were written long ago" doesn't mean they shouldn't consistently be reexamined. If they're deemed good, then they'll keep existing, and vice versa. Ton of laws we've had earlier has been reexamined and found utter garbage (Witchcraft, slavery, etc), meanwhile things that weren't looked at as a problem before have since been added (Wife beating, rape laws, age of consent for both drinking and sex, etc).
Just because the bible says you shouldn't be gay (or have tattoos, or piercings) doesn't mean that we shouldn't reexamine it from a modern perspective and rescind it (If you believe in it to begin with, that is). Likewise just because the founding members of your country decided something several hundred years ago does not mean their word is gospel and should never be looked at again. Some (most) of the laws they put in place are still good, and some are not. This is how a society evolves.
|
Not one but two posts on "reexamine?" Sorry, anybody that leads off with "Why does this topic always have to devolve into constitutional arguments?" and ends with "One cares about facts right now and tries to create knowledge, while the other tries to interpret the words of long-dead prophets and assumes that no new knowledge can ever be found, because everything worth knowing is already known and just needs to be interpreted" is making the case that re-examination (including of what the constitution says) is not his point. No constitutional arguments (examine original meaning) or discussion of old screeds (just facts now/tries to create knowledge). I recommend re-reading his post if you think your responses to mine have any bearing.
|
Let's put it lightly for you.
Most of the western world that couldn't give a rats ass about your constitution, doesn't have your issue. Its by many, many datapoints also more free and more democratic. Your point of bringing up the constitution again and again has the same merit as bringing up the bible in an argument about evolution. Which is, so you get it: None.
|
On May 14 2019 02:32 Velr wrote:
Let's put it lightly for you.
Most of the western world that couldn't give a rats ass about your constitution, doesn't have your issue. Its by many, many datapoints also more free and more democratic. Your point of bringing up the constitution again and again has the same merit as bringing up the bible in an argument about evolution. Which is, so you get it: None.
I return the scorn, if the best you can do is insult the constitution that created my government and compare it to religious texts. I'm not asking you to take an interest, or to even move here for some "datapoints." You can chuckle about the Bible and evolution and datapoints and the superiority of other Western nations in Swiss cafes, but you'll have to trot out something better if you want Americans to take an interest in hucksters.
|
The Constitution contains the capacity to amend the Constitution. Sounds like the people who made it intended it to be a document that would change over time with the context of the country. Perhaps they didn't want people to both remember the past and then still be condemned to repeat it anyway because of unmovable laws and texts.
|
On May 14 2019 03:01 Nebuchad wrote:
The Constitution contains the capacity to amend the Constitution. Sounds like the people who made it intended it to be a document that would change over time with the context of the country. Perhaps they didn't want people to both remember the past and then still be condemned to repeat it anyway because of unmovable laws and texts.
It's tough to amend the constitution. And unless and until the second amendment gets amended, people's guns cant be taken away (not all of them anyway). Now I'm all for reassessing gun control laws, but the right to keep and bear arms must be respected so long as it is the supreme law.
|
On May 14 2019 03:14 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On May 14 2019 03:01 Nebuchad wrote:
The Constitution contains the capacity to amend the Constitution. Sounds like the people who made it intended it to be a document that would change over time with the context of the country. Perhaps they didn't want people to both remember the past and then still be condemned to repeat it anyway because of unmovable laws and texts. It's tough to amend the constitution. And unless and until the second amendment gets amended, people's guns cant be taken away (not all of them anyway). Now I'm all for reassessing gun control laws, but the right to keep and bear arms must be respected so long as it is the supreme law.
It's good that it's tough, it shouldn't be easy. When we make appeals to the constitution, we shouldn't forget that the constitution itself is on the side of the constitution being reevaluated sometimes. I would argue that it diminishes the value of the appeal.
|
You have to care about the constitution enough to amend it too. Part of that involves building a legislative majority to pass amendments. It so happens that not enough Americans in not enough states think the second amendment is outdated and should be repealed. It’s reflected in the position views of their elected representatives. I would suggest trying to change that opinion over generations, instead of blaming NRA lobbying, or people not caring about gun deaths, or Americans being dumber than enlightened Europeans.
I’m quite happy with the second amendment in its present state, and only wish the “bear arms” part were better interpreted by the courts. I’ve seen enough measures meant to repeal the amendment by other means to be grateful that the founders saw its importance so long ago. I would probably have already lost my freedom to purchase a gun and use it to protect my person, family, and property long ago had that amendment never existed. I think we have a good case here on the preservation of rights, enshrined in law, operating well despite the mania of the times.
|
But there we circle back to what Simberto was saying. You are satisfied with the way things are; you want this. It's not really about what the constitution says, it's about different views on what's going on today.
|
I do think it matters what I think about the amendments and original constitutional text today. Part of that is informed by the good arguments made when the constitution was just an idea and was opposed by the states. The main point of this post was why his thinking was deeply flawed. I moved a little further than my initial objections to talk about amendments.
|
|
|
On May 14 2019 04:13 JimmiC wrote:
I just enjoy that the argument goes basically "we can't do any of the logical stuff that has worked elsewhere because its our freedom and constitution" "but what about that the constitution can change" "no they didn't mean this, they could for see all and are wise without question" "how about the things they did change" "they needed to" "how about this part in the constitution about responsibility attached to the right" "that is not what they meant". Then around around again.
I see it differently.
It looks to me like danglars (who for shorthand I'm using as a stand in for most gun rights proponents) doesn't want to do the things that have worked elsewhere because it simply isn't worth what you would lose in personal freedom. The constitution agrees.
This is a valid viewpoint, although I completely disagree with it, and it isn't really Danglars' fault that the argument stalls there. There isn't any room for discussion when one side thinks that doing nothing is the best thing you can do and the law agrees with them. Trying to change anything about that is difficult.
This isn't an argument that needs to go around in circles at all. If anything, Danglars is right that the best way to get gun legislation to change is for something to make the population to demand it from their politicians.
|
To put the counter argument short:
The american constitution and its founders were anti political parties. They really were shortsighted when it comes to that but if you would have a general vote just on this issue, whiteout party politics playing into it... The republicans would lose hard.
|
|
|
come on people, Danglars would not accept a 2nd amendment change to the constitution even if it'll come from the populous all the way up to and through the legislature. he'll die with his glock in his hand mumbling something something thou shan't take our guns!.
User was temp banned for this post.
|
Good luck proving I wouldn't accept a constitutional amendment. It's just sour grapes from kids that like to think evil of their rivals. I don't have to say one word about your argument, because I think you're a bad person and wouldn't comply if I won legislatively! It's also involves a generous helping of projection from the side that denies the 2nd amendment means what it says.
Leave the prophesy of future sore losers to deities and prophets.
|
On May 14 2019 04:13 JimmiC wrote:
I just enjoy that the argument goes basically "we can't do any of the logical stuff that has worked elsewhere because its our freedom and constitution" "but what about that the constitution can change" "no they didn't mean this, they could for see all and are wise without question" "how about the things they did change" "they needed to" "how about this part in the constitution about responsibility attached to the right" "that is not what they meant". Then around around again.
In reading about the history of all this, it becomes pretty clear that, at least at the time of the founding, militia service entailed some real responsibility. And, every able bodied male aged 18-45 was a militia member by law, and was required by law to obtain a rifle. The law further provided that all militia members (which, again, is all able bodied males) were to be kept "constantly provided with arms." Not only that, Congress passed laws that described in minute detail how the states should train their militias (i.e., even in times of peace, the general population of able bodied males had to periodically attend militia training type events). Then when the time came, you put your life on the line because the president needed to call up the militia to suppress a threat to the homeland. That is what owning a gun really means under the law - it means you're supposed to help out to provide for the common defense.
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
