|
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 December 14 2019 11:20 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here. Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here. My dear Danglars, I do not wish for anyone to be harmed. I suppose that's true for you too. So let's talk on what do you propose to reduce the amount of gun violence in the US ?
Still waiting for danglars answer. He surely posts fast when he needs to defends "thoughts and prayers" but can't be bothered to propose anything. This is exactly why people can't take his arguments seriously.
|
On December 15 2019 23:14 Erasme wrote:Show nested quote +On December 14 2019 11:20 Erasme wrote:On December 14 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here. Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here. My dear Danglars, I do not wish for anyone to be harmed. I suppose that's true for you too. So let's talk on what do you propose to reduce the amount of gun violence in the US ? Still waiting for danglars answer. He surely posts fast when he needs to defends "thoughts and prayers" but can't be bothered to propose anything. This is exactly why people can't take his arguments seriously.
Right, after you troll like this, you really expect to be treated seriously? Listen, respond, and engage next time with people you value responses from. You literally just got my answer to your last question, but took that opportunity to just shitpost about shooting Republicans and your hypothetical thoughts and prayers in that case. They’ll (sadly) be future examples that will raise gun control questions, and you can decide if you’re interested in hearing my opinion then. And until that point, just relax. I wish you all the best. Merry Christmas, enjoy the holidays with hopefully friends and family, and all the computer games you like to play.
|
On December 16 2019 00:06 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 15 2019 23:14 Erasme wrote:On December 14 2019 11:20 Erasme wrote:On December 14 2019 02:06 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 01:45 NewSunshine wrote:On December 14 2019 01:11 Danglars wrote:On December 14 2019 00:54 NewSunshine wrote:
Sure, Danglars isn't the only one reading the thread, but he's the one who transformed the discussion into how people who try to express genuine sympathy are being attacked. That was never the point. This is a discussion that's gone in circles a million times. Genuine or no, these expressions of sympathy always seem to accompany no action, suggesting that they either don't care, or they do care, but they view it as an unavoidable price to pay for their rights. Even if you take the latter, there's still the assumption that nothing can be done about our current predicament, which simply isn't true. Getting caught in the weeds about whether we're catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy only ensures that nothing more gets accomplished. Which I'm sure for Danglars is part of the point.
The discussion should be about whether things can be done(which... yes) and what, but instead we're caught on this other discussion stemming from a perceived attack, which of course is leading nowhere. I don't have high hopes for any action on this issue until the attack-the-sympathy crowd realizes they're alienating the persuadable voters out there. I might be in the minority when I say it's moronic to consider sympathy false when someone else judges the action insufficient. This goes back to Wombat's point: he would think it unjust for his stance on a surveillance stance to invalidate his sympathy for the victims of terrorism. I think everybody here would have a more wise opinion on the matter if they were constantly insulted on the human emotion side of an issue for not supporting a particular policy on the issue. The stances I constantly hear in this thread only makes sense if debaters in this thread were relatively unexposed to people denying their own compassion day in and day out. Also, since when is failure to rake people over the coals for thoughts and prayers suddenly catering enough to people's expressions of sympathy? Catering? Keeping your derogatory comments to yourself is almost a public good in this case. But apparently sticking it to the thoughts and prayers crowd is more important than gun control. Nobody is attacking anybody for showing displays of sympathy. People have made that clear multiple times. Yet you still seem hung up on it. That's not the issue here. Blatantly false. Multiple users defended that approach, doubled down on the "enemy" rhetoric (enemies to be defeated rather than fellow citizens to be persuaded), and tried to prove to me that it was innocent/justified/rational. Go back and read the thread if you think anyone showed any signs of backing down on the derogative comments. Read the responses I got when I said it was counterproductive. I think every single page has a least one poster justifying the attack, whether or not they're an emotional psychic knowing it can't be true sympathy or not (engage with Wombat's argument if you really think that's any excuse). Willing blindness to the responses will not help you here. My dear Danglars, I do not wish for anyone to be harmed. I suppose that's true for you too. So let's talk on what do you propose to reduce the amount of gun violence in the US ? Still waiting for danglars answer. He surely posts fast when he needs to defends "thoughts and prayers" but can't be bothered to propose anything. This is exactly why people can't take his arguments seriously. Right, after you troll like this, you really expect to be treated seriously? Listen, respond, and engage next time with people you value responses from. You literally just got my answer to your last question, but took that opportunity to just shitpost about shooting Republicans and your hypothetical thoughts and prayers in that case. They’ll (sadly) be future examples that will raise gun control questions, and you can decide if you’re interested in hearing my opinion then. And until that point, just relax. I wish you all the best. Merry Christmas, enjoy the holidays with hopefully friends and family, and all the computer games you like to play.
Another post with no proposal. I'll wait the next shooting to hear your opinion then. Shouldn't take more than a couple of days 
|
United States24673 Posts
The "why don't you propose something then" argument has a bit of an issue. People have been proposing things in this thread for years. It's kind of hard to remember everything proposed by everyone, but also not that easy to go back and refer people to all of your prior proposals. I think it's better to stick to issues than to accuse people who have been in this thread for years of having not proposed anything, unless you actually know that to be fact.
|
On December 16 2019 01:00 micronesia wrote:
The "why don't you propose something then" argument has a bit of an issue. People have been proposing things in this thread for years. It's kind of hard to remember everything proposed by everyone, but also not that easy to go back and refer people to all of your prior proposals. I think it's better to stick to issues than to accuse people who have been in this thread for years of having not proposed anything, unless you actually know that to be fact.
You are right. Obviously any proposals here would not matter, however I'd like to know what Danglars would consider acceptable. From his past messages I can only understand that he considers the current situation acceptable, so I'd like him to clearly state his position.
|
On December 13 2019 22:39 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 21:55 Erasme wrote:On December 13 2019 11:07 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2019 08:32 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. I guess you would be ok with antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans I'll give you my thoughts and prayers if that ever happen It's funny that the flurry of posts reached a peak with someone accusing me of having no problem with violent gun deaths, and a day later it's back to being ok with "antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans." Don't think too long for why gun rights people distrust gun control people. Don't wonder too much about a lack of policy debate against assholes that think dead kids/victims of mass shootings/civil war don't matter to you. Why ? You believe the minority should be able to defend itself against the tyranny of the majority. Well currently the majority believes current gun laws are good enough while people die. Following your own logic, the minority can and needs to act violently. I think there’s a certain disconnect between the polling and the representatives on this topic, so I wouldn’t be so sure about the sides on this. Certain states have passed more laws in the wake of the Florida school shooting, particularly. Secondarily, the big civil rights enshrined in the bill of rights are a better backdrop for what is and isn’t tyranny. Is the government jailing you for your expressed political opinion, despite the first amendment? Are they enforcing mandatory gun buybacks with an activist court’s permission, despite the second amendment? Are you being denied trial, or put in double jeopardy, or not being told what you’re accused of, in spite of your sixth amendment? That’s the higher standard of tyrannies that I’m using the word to describe. Not some person feeling like the lack of hate speech laws amounts to a tyranny, or a (current) political minority unable to pass their favored gun laws before the next election. That’s far too close to political hyperbole and politicking than an actual string of abuses of your rights. Your right to force others to give up their guns, no. And my views are way more in line with building trust that gun laws will be gauged by their impact on criminal activity, and repealed should there be no impact as in the past, and respecting the second amendment rights of all Americans. I’ve already laid out two or three legislative and enforcement related changes I’d favor relating to gun control.
Why are the big "civil rights" enshrined in the bill of rights more important then whatever the current society decides. How is an amendment written by people who believed people of color were less human as them worth more as what the current society you live in believes. Why did you pick this amendment. Why not the one about prohibition? Hypothetically, if a democratically elected congress unanimously voted to rewrite the constitution without the right to bear weapons, why would this be more tyranny then having a bunch of white Christian slave owning business men decide for the next 250 years how society needs to function?
In my opinion, every document, no matter how holy it is needs to be adjusted to modern society as quickly as this society evolves itself. Even if you don't believe this, how can you see the second amendment as holy if the US did not pass it to Germany? After ww2, the US "guided" the writing of the new German constitution. They did not find it necessary to protect the German people against a tyrannical government though. Guess that freedom was not seen as essential to the states back then, as were a lot of things we believe today are outdated in the US political system. Or maybe every country except the US, Mexico and Guatemala are tyrannical because they don't guarantee there people the right to bear guns.
|
On December 16 2019 21:55 Broetchenholer wrote:Show nested quote +On December 13 2019 22:39 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2019 21:55 Erasme wrote:On December 13 2019 11:07 Danglars wrote:On December 13 2019 08:32 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 08:34 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:45 Erasme wrote:On December 12 2019 07:39 Danglars wrote:On December 12 2019 07:24 Wombat_NI wrote:
I don’t see why Danglars can’t be sympathetic and hold the views he holds.
I’m personally against real punitive law enforcement, an overarching surveillance state when it comes to criminality etc.
If a terrorist incident that occurs that could have been prevented with the above being in place, I can still have sympathy for the victims while still feeling it’s the price to pay for certain other things I value.
I can’t say we hold the exact same views, but something of parallel (maybe that’s the right word?). There’s several liberties I now hold, that I’d eventually be persuaded to fight for and die for if a future tyrannical state took them away. The rich tradition dates further back beyond the Revolution, where something as scoffed at like “taxation” (or “stuff”) led to so many lives lost in gun violence “continued safety of innocents” “precious human life.” I still think the noble preservation of gun rights continue to guard against the need for such a revolution again. The second amendment is not the red-headed stepchild of the civil rights guaranteed to me in the bill of rights, but indeed stands as a prophylactic step against unimaginable loss of life in the future. I might even dare say, loss of human rights I hold very dear alongside life. But when you reduce it all to valuing stuff over life, you indulge a false dichotomy. When you deny the other side true sympathy, real expressions of condolences, and actually thinking deaths from violence is a problem today, you undermine any basis of arguing from shared humanity you can hope to make. And I won’t blame a single person for checking out of the legislative battle when the opening salvo is “fuck your thoughts and prayers hypocrite, just kidding” ... as the most recent mass shooting started off with. Correct me if i'm wrong You want to keep current gun laws in case taxes ever rises too much or in case of some apocalyptic scenario ? I made an edit to make my point a little more clear in that post. The case of the American revolution serves to put the lie to claims that lives should always trump stuff. They fought and died for rights about their stuff (taxation), and that was the birth of this great country. I agree with the argument presented in the Declaration of Independence as it relates to rights about stuff, and of their decision to commit to lives lost from gun violence to make an effect of it. Simultaneously, I think an armed citizenry is the ultimate protection against a government turning into a tyranny—of the majority against a minority, of an elite class against the rights of the less well connected, or of any group against the rights enshrined in the constitution. It’s a deterrent effect for aspiring political groups that might hope to get frisky with the first amendment, or the fourth amendment. The second amendment is a deterrent and a means of last resort, and things like separation of powers, the electoral college, and federalism are good protections up to that final stage. You won’t be able to disarm people to force compliance with a series of unjust laws trampling on civil rights, it would get bloody for both sides. This isn’t in relation to taxation specifically; that’s a historical example of my other point in life vs stuff. I guess you would be ok with antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans I'll give you my thoughts and prayers if that ever happen It's funny that the flurry of posts reached a peak with someone accusing me of having no problem with violent gun deaths, and a day later it's back to being ok with "antiguns people starting to shoot at republicans." Don't think too long for why gun rights people distrust gun control people. Don't wonder too much about a lack of policy debate against assholes that think dead kids/victims of mass shootings/civil war don't matter to you. Why ? You believe the minority should be able to defend itself against the tyranny of the majority. Well currently the majority believes current gun laws are good enough while people die. Following your own logic, the minority can and needs to act violently. I think there’s a certain disconnect between the polling and the representatives on this topic, so I wouldn’t be so sure about the sides on this. Certain states have passed more laws in the wake of the Florida school shooting, particularly. Secondarily, the big civil rights enshrined in the bill of rights are a better backdrop for what is and isn’t tyranny. Is the government jailing you for your expressed political opinion, despite the first amendment? Are they enforcing mandatory gun buybacks with an activist court’s permission, despite the second amendment? Are you being denied trial, or put in double jeopardy, or not being told what you’re accused of, in spite of your sixth amendment? That’s the higher standard of tyrannies that I’m using the word to describe. Not some person feeling like the lack of hate speech laws amounts to a tyranny, or a (current) political minority unable to pass their favored gun laws before the next election. That’s far too close to political hyperbole and politicking than an actual string of abuses of your rights. Your right to force others to give up their guns, no. And my views are way more in line with building trust that gun laws will be gauged by their impact on criminal activity, and repealed should there be no impact as in the past, and respecting the second amendment rights of all Americans. I’ve already laid out two or three legislative and enforcement related changes I’d favor relating to gun control. Why are the big "civil rights" enshrined in the bill of rights more important then whatever the current society decides. How is an amendment written by people who believed people of color were less human as them worth more as what the current society you live in believes. Why did you pick this amendment. Why not the one about prohibition? Hypothetically, if a democratically elected congress unanimously voted to rewrite the constitution without the right to bear weapons, why would this be more tyranny then having a bunch of white Christian slave owning business men decide for the next 250 years how society needs to function? In my opinion, every document, no matter how holy it is needs to be adjusted to modern society as quickly as this society evolves itself. Even if you don't believe this, how can you see the second amendment as holy if the US did not pass it to Germany? After ww2, the US "guided" the writing of the new German constitution. They did not find it necessary to protect the German people against a tyrannical government though. Guess that freedom was not seen as essential to the states back then, as were a lot of things we believe today are outdated in the US political system. Or maybe every country except the US, Mexico and Guatemala are tyrannical because they don't guarantee there people the right to bear guns.
Current society is always prone to the fragility of democracy, or the action of mobs, and the forgetfulness of the wisdom of the past. I select the Bill of Rights for I think that they're incredibly necessary preservers of freedom and better lawmaking in light of them would improve society. Look no further than my defense of the second amendment. The mistakes in the constitution in the 3/5ths compromise ended in bloody war and repeal, and were always at odds with the overall text. It's not particularly weak to a trite examination in terms of naive power relationships. Look to black slave Frederick Douglass's eventual embracing of the constitution as an instrument of liberation, whereas contemporaries believed it was a pro-slavery document.
Back to your sarcastic post called "a really poor reading of Danglar's position and you know it." You should really answer the same questions I posed to NewSunshine in this post. It's backward and moronic to only offer sarcastic misreadings because you think I misread someone else, without actually posting your opinion on the subject. How's that profit anyone? The several questions I now pose to you. You offered a defense of Simberto, now show me you actually think different than him using words you believe in instead of dramatic performances. We may not even share the basis of conferring humanity on others, in this case human compassion on the victims of violence, and that would be a poor substructure to even continue on more esoteric topics like human rights and reason.
|
You did not answer any of my questions, instead you are again pointing at the part where you see yourself as a victim of the discussion. I don't doubt you feel empathy and I don't believe the pro gun group consists mostly of sociopaths either. I also believe that you are merely using that line of attack as a diversion and a way to make your opponents in the discussion feel bad. Basically you are making everyone say, no, I am not a nazi, the same way you felt it monstrous to say no, my thoughts and prayers are genuine. But hey, if you do it, it's for liberty and good discussion standards. Yeah right.
So back to the point. Why is the constitution not prone to the fallings of democracy? Why is only the part of the constitution you like the one that is above such things? Why would bipartisan support of an amendment to abolish the second be any different then bipartisan support to the bill of rights?
Also, what does Frederick Douglas have to do with anything. Slavery was not especially allowed in the bill of rights, people simply understood it excluded slaves. And women. Saying the bill of rights is anti slavery is like saying Greek citistates were modern societies because they had democracy.
The bill of rights is a testament of its time and you can only be for it because you allow yourself to treat it with generosity in some areas. So why interpret it modern in regards to slavery and women and like in the 18th century in regards to guns?
|
+ Show Spoiler +On December 17 2019 01:10 Broetchenholer wrote:
You did not answer any of my questions, instead you are again pointing at the part where you see yourself as a victim of the discussion. I don't doubt you feel empathy and I don't believe the pro gun group consists mostly of sociopaths either. I also believe that you are merely using that line of attack as a diversion and a way to make your opponents in the discussion feel bad. Basically you are making everyone say, no, I am not a nazi, the same way you felt it monstrous to say no, my thoughts and prayers are genuine. But hey, if you do it, it's for liberty and good discussion standards. Yeah right.
So back to the point. Why is the constitution not prone to the fallings of democracy? Why is only the part of the constitution you like the one that is above such things? Why would bipartisan support of an amendment to abolish the second be any different then bipartisan support to the bill of rights?
Also, what does Frederick Douglas have to do with anything. Slavery was not especially allowed in the bill of rights, people simply understood it excluded slaves. And women. Saying the bill of rights is anti slavery is like saying Greek citistates were modern societies because they had democracy.
The bill of rights is a testament of its time and you can only be for it because you allow yourself to treat it with generosity in some areas. So why interpret it modern in regards to slavery and women and like in the 18th century in regards to guns?
I responded to your post about hypocrisy, here I didn't hear back. I responded when you asked why "big civil rights enshrined in the bill of rights" would ever be more important than "whatever current society decides." That was apparently insufficient for you. You literally quoted two posts of mine explaining the first things I thought were worth preserving about the second amendment, yet somehow you come back wondering why only "part[s] of the constitution you like the one that is above such things." Yes, I just finished explaining the primary reason I think it's still relevant. You can take me up on that argument as others have done, but ignoring it to move on won't do you any good. So don't whine about not receiving answers.
The current society evolved from past societies, whose past governing structures operated under constitutional restrictions as well as our current focus on those of the bill of rights. It lays out several things that government may not do affecting the rights of their citizens. The failings of democracy and the chaos of majority rule and the easily-destructive mob do not benefit from knowing the future. The past writings, and their reasoning, benefit from the passage of hundreds of years since when society survived and thrived. That's something "whatever the current society decides" (your words) does not benefit from. Something about the peaceful transfer of power today, and the current relationship between society and its government, was made possible by the structure and guaranteed rights of the past, and discarding big ones now puts at risk future society. If you were some oracle, then current society can trash whatever isn't favored by current culture at no risk to the future.
The prohibition amendment was relatively recent and short lived, and could only happen with a large chunk of the nation away at war and the general backdrop of war. I don't see it as a good example to establish a point.
I brought up the subject of Frederick Douglas because you mentioned a pretty loaded hypothetical example of "white Christian slave owning business men." I also brought it up to show someone that believed that slavery, permitted after the passage of the constitution, was nevertheless opposed by the constitution while simultaneously needing amendments to the constitution to put a final contradiction to it. Why would a black slave cite a document as encouraging his liberation, in a surrounding movement that understood it to be pro-slavery? Shouldn't he join the choir saying the constitution sucked for the reason that it permitted slavery? Well, there were valuable precepts and wisdom present in it that argued for universal liberty and dignity. Basically, there's more going on than just repeal this, institute this new thing. (I'm simplifying the underlying arguments to adapt to this internet forum medium). So don't cast aside important protections just because some majority, or vocal minority, of society thinks such protections are ultimately unnecessary and the provisions of protections are ultimately too damaging to the citizens. They might come to value those protections if some future crazy right-wing government erases liberties and structural limits on power, or a police force ignore their protection.
The prevention of a tyranny is valid in both ancient and modern contexts. At the start of my nation, we were not given representation as colonies and English subjects by the English king and parliament. The start of the revolution involved British troops traveling to one of the towns presumed to be stockpiling weapons. Disarmament was a goal. The abuse would continue. More currently, other governments without protections like the first amendment jail and fine their comedians for speech the government does not like. Take Böhmermann's criminal prosecution for a poem critical of Erdogan. Take Mark Meechan's fining for an offensive youtube video. Other nations pass tyrannical laws permitted by their constitutions, and target the powerless individual citizen. Their courts go along with this, and they bear this infringement and outrage later passes. And when we talk about a possible string of major abuses of that kind (for any one act should prompt legislative recourse and change in representation) justifying an armed resistance to enforcing the abuses, then I say defend yourself with modern weapons (in common use, as decided under Heller). Make governments tremble a little to govern as a politically disconnected minority as well. Don't throw up your hands and say "guess we can't do anything." (Again, this isn't to say you can't have differing societal values; I'm just going to critique them as they relate to mine). Courts aren't a good last line of defense against abuse of political speech, religious liberty, parental rights, etc etc.
I see the modern abuses and modern protections as I read the ancient abuses and ancient protections of history. Countries lacking these have subjects not citizens, and to a certain extent, the other societies happy to live as ultimately subjects of kings by committee have a certain prerogative to operate that way. Just like the modern treatment of the First Amendment applies to modern mediums like your website and blog, the second amendment applies to modern weapons in common use. It's not really just a "testament to its time" since it helped safeguard a society that's endured longer than ... well German and French constitutions/governmental systems of the period.
I spent a lot of time in another thread discoursing on what amounted to different social contracts and different values in favor of more security and less freedom. I'm not such a fan of those resulting societies, not least of which are the conditions bringing up alt-right parties and politicians and their social critiques.
With better judicial treatment of the second amendment, particularly at the court of appeals level lately, the second amendment works harmoniously with and supports current regulation of guns. Citizens may feel safe that fuck-your-thoughts-and-prayers Gun Control Crusader will only get new regulations on waiting periods, registration requirements, red flag laws, and all the rest ... not banning guns in common use. See Thomas's dissent to not hearing a case on the second amendment for an example of what's lacking right now in court treatment. There's quite a lot of common ground if a future political debate deeply respected the second amendment (they aren't coming for your guns, don't worry! If it's widely owned and useful for lawful means, it's totally safe for you to buy and own and carry) and only worked on keeping them from the hands of people with criminal intent.
Apologies for the length.
|
This is the first time I see you somewhat honestly making an argument in this thread. So thanks for that, even though it makes it really hard to post because I don't have the time to actually put as much effort in it.
That said, I cannot accept your argument. You praise the constitution for being founded in the wisdom of the past and profiting from it but in the same breath say that 200 years later we cannot profit from that wisfom and change our society to the better. You arbitrarily pick one document on rules of society, the bill of rights, and put it on a pedestal, timeless. Either we evolve or we don't. If we evolve, the bill of rights will be replaced with something better. If we don't, what came before must be the real wisdom and the bill of rights cannot possibly be a good change.
The rules our society agrees on should always be reflected in our laws. If Germany decided to abolish free speech and the politicians actually succeed in it, by adhering to the rules of the society, then mthis is how Germany will work from then on. If you decide your rights are more important then the lives of your fellow Americans who disagree how your society should be working, you are the tyrant.
|
On December 17 2019 07:41 Broetchenholer wrote:
This is the first time I see you somewhat honestly making an argument in this thread. So thanks for that, even though it makes it really hard to post because I don't have the time to actually put as much effort in it.
Likewise, it’s refreshing to see you in such a good mood, reading and responding and showing some grace on such a divisive issue despite thread norms.
That said, I cannot accept your argument. You praise the constitution for being founded in the wisdom of the past and profiting from it but in the same breath say that 200 years later we cannot profit from that wisfom and change our society to the better. You arbitrarily pick one document on rules of society, the bill of rights, and put it on a pedestal, timeless. Either we evolve or we don't. If we evolve, the bill of rights will be replaced with something better. If we don't, what came before must be the real wisdom and the bill of rights cannot possibly be a good change.
The rules our society agrees on should always be reflected in our laws. If Germany decided to abolish free speech and the politicians actually succeed in it, by adhering to the rules of the society, then mthis is how Germany will work from then on. If you decide your rights are more important then the lives of your fellow Americans who disagree how your society should be working, you are the tyrant.
I still think you’re treating your freedoms with too cavalier of an attitude, but hopefully your society won’t evolve in the wrong direction regardless. I don’t wish ill on others just to prove they should’ve done more to protect themselves.
|
On December 17 2019 10:25 Danglars wrote:...
I still think you’re treating your freedoms with too cavalier of an attitude, but hopefully your society won’t evolve in the wrong direction regardless.
Evolution doesn't only happen in the wrong direction.
|
On December 17 2019 13:44 Aquanim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2019 10:25 Danglars wrote:...
I still think you’re treating your freedoms with too cavalier of an attitude, but hopefully your society won’t evolve in the wrong direction regardless. Evolution doesn't only happen in the wrong direction.
Hence, I hope that is not the case.
|
On December 17 2019 07:41 Broetchenholer wrote:
This is the first time I see you somewhat honestly making an argument in this thread. So thanks for that, even though it makes it really hard to post because I don't have the time to actually put as much effort in it.
That said, I cannot accept your argument. You praise the constitution for being founded in the wisdom of the past and profiting from it but in the same breath say that 200 years later we cannot profit from that wisfom and change our society to the better. You arbitrarily pick one document on rules of society, the bill of rights, and put it on a pedestal, timeless. Either we evolve or we don't. If we evolve, the bill of rights will be replaced with something better. If we don't, what came before must be the real wisdom and the bill of rights cannot possibly be a good change.
The rules our society agrees on should always be reflected in our laws. If Germany decided to abolish free speech and the politicians actually succeed in it, by adhering to the rules of the society, then mthis is how Germany will work from then on. If you decide your rights are more important then the lives of your fellow Americans who disagree how your society should be working, you are the tyrant.
The problem with "changing society for the better" is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the 2A has not been repealed or amended. As it stands, the right "shall not be infringed." The Constitution specifies how the Constitution can be amended, so if you think things should be changed, the amendment process is your solution. The solution is not to leave it in the hands of a couple of judges who are essentially deciding what's best for society, without adhering to the lawmaking & amending process prescribed by the Constitution.
|
On November 25 2019 12:34 Danglars wrote:Show nested quote +On November 22 2019 04:33 Doodsmack wrote:
Interesting quote I found from an British writer (Toland) from 1699. It's basically the exact same gun control debate that we have today. This debate truly goes on ad infinitum lol.
"I am for ARMING ALL THE PEOPLE. ... For what can better demonstrate the Confidence his Majesty places in the unquestionable Affection of his Subjects, or more encrease and confirm the Veneration on these have for him, than that he puts 'em in a Condition of defending themselves against all his and their Enemies, without needing or expecting the Assistance of others? But notwithstanding I took all possible care to be duly inform'd, I could never hear any weighty Objection made to this Proposition, tho two are commonly offer'd, and the first of 'em is, that there will be no end of Robberies, and House-breakings in the Country, if the common People be once arm'd. I perceive these Gentlemen design to be popular, and the Vulgar are hugely oblig'd to 'em for their good Opinion. But supposing the worst, Robberies will be so far from being more frequent than at this time, that this is the only right Method of totally suppressing all such Disorders. It is an ordinary thing for two or three Fellows to commit a Robbery in sight of twenty People, stronger and stouter than themselves, but that are either without Arms, or know not how to use 'em; whereas, upon the foot of our MODEL, when any House or Persons are known to be attack'd, they are not only provided for their own Defence, but the Neighbours are all ready to come in to their Assistance, both with Arms in their hands, and as able to handle 'em as House-breakers can be suppos'd to do. But if the objecting Gentlemen have any meaning, it is that Rogues only should have Arms, and honest Men none to oppose them: For when any are dispos'd to violate the Laws, they always take care to arm themselves without any deference to Publick Authority; nor do we find that Thieves ever want Weapons, notwithstanding any Prohibitions to the contrary, which they no more regard than they do those which forbid 'em to steal. But good Men, on the contrary, will yield Obedience to the Laws; and so be expos'd, if thus left naked and unarm'd, to the Insults and Assaults of the most determin'd Villains." Good find.
Another interesting quote, by Thornton, writing in 1752:
"Solon (Athenian leader) wisely formed that commonwealth like a well-regulated hive, where every individual has his weapon of offense and defense, to protect such delicacies as free governments will always be possessed of. If they are not so secured, there will never be wanting robbers, who will lie in wait to ravish their treasures from them; to prevent which, it is absolutely necessary for every people to have the power of fighting for themselves.
I am sure this country has no reason of all places in the world, to be against the arming of its subjects. For the advantages it has received by them, when they were so, I need not mention the critical time when arms were hastily and promiscuously given out to any one that required them: yet no ill use was then made of them, but a great deal of good use; and indeed I cannot be so chimerical as some are, to conceive that any one would be so rash to take up arms in the militia, under an appearance of supporting the state, when their hearts are averse to our government and laws."
https://archive.org/details/counterpoisebein00thoruoft/page/n4, p. 27-28.
|
On December 21 2019 14:51 Doodsmack wrote:Show nested quote +On December 17 2019 07:41 Broetchenholer wrote:
This is the first time I see you somewhat honestly making an argument in this thread. So thanks for that, even though it makes it really hard to post because I don't have the time to actually put as much effort in it.
That said, I cannot accept your argument. You praise the constitution for being founded in the wisdom of the past and profiting from it but in the same breath say that 200 years later we cannot profit from that wisfom and change our society to the better. You arbitrarily pick one document on rules of society, the bill of rights, and put it on a pedestal, timeless. Either we evolve or we don't. If we evolve, the bill of rights will be replaced with something better. If we don't, what came before must be the real wisdom and the bill of rights cannot possibly be a good change.
The rules our society agrees on should always be reflected in our laws. If Germany decided to abolish free speech and the politicians actually succeed in it, by adhering to the rules of the society, then mthis is how Germany will work from then on. If you decide your rights are more important then the lives of your fellow Americans who disagree how your society should be working, you are the tyrant. The problem with "changing society for the better" is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the 2A has not been repealed or amended. As it stands, the right "shall not be infringed." The Constitution specifies how the Constitution can be amended, so if you think things should be changed, the amendment process is your solution. The solution is not to leave it in the hands of a couple of judges who are essentially deciding what's best for society, without adhering to the lawmaking & amending process prescribed by the Constitution.
Bolded part is literally how we got the current state of gun control. One 5-4 Supreme Court decision dramatically changed the understood meaning of the second amendment.
|
On December 21 2019 15:29 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2019 14:51 Doodsmack wrote:On December 17 2019 07:41 Broetchenholer wrote:
This is the first time I see you somewhat honestly making an argument in this thread. So thanks for that, even though it makes it really hard to post because I don't have the time to actually put as much effort in it.
That said, I cannot accept your argument. You praise the constitution for being founded in the wisdom of the past and profiting from it but in the same breath say that 200 years later we cannot profit from that wisfom and change our society to the better. You arbitrarily pick one document on rules of society, the bill of rights, and put it on a pedestal, timeless. Either we evolve or we don't. If we evolve, the bill of rights will be replaced with something better. If we don't, what came before must be the real wisdom and the bill of rights cannot possibly be a good change.
The rules our society agrees on should always be reflected in our laws. If Germany decided to abolish free speech and the politicians actually succeed in it, by adhering to the rules of the society, then mthis is how Germany will work from then on. If you decide your rights are more important then the lives of your fellow Americans who disagree how your society should be working, you are the tyrant. The problem with "changing society for the better" is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the 2A has not been repealed or amended. As it stands, the right "shall not be infringed." The Constitution specifies how the Constitution can be amended, so if you think things should be changed, the amendment process is your solution. The solution is not to leave it in the hands of a couple of judges who are essentially deciding what's best for society, without adhering to the lawmaking & amending process prescribed by the Constitution. Bolded part is literally how we got the current state of gun control. One 5-4 Supreme Court decision dramatically changed the understood meaning of the second amendment.
This isn't true at all. Even if you are hardcore "well gee you need to be in a militia with regulations in order to have any ownership of guns" You'd be without a paddle because the US has no mechanism or definition for what anything other then a "disorganized" militia is anymore.
|
On December 21 2019 15:29 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On December 21 2019 14:51 Doodsmack wrote:On December 17 2019 07:41 Broetchenholer wrote:
This is the first time I see you somewhat honestly making an argument in this thread. So thanks for that, even though it makes it really hard to post because I don't have the time to actually put as much effort in it.
That said, I cannot accept your argument. You praise the constitution for being founded in the wisdom of the past and profiting from it but in the same breath say that 200 years later we cannot profit from that wisfom and change our society to the better. You arbitrarily pick one document on rules of society, the bill of rights, and put it on a pedestal, timeless. Either we evolve or we don't. If we evolve, the bill of rights will be replaced with something better. If we don't, what came before must be the real wisdom and the bill of rights cannot possibly be a good change.
The rules our society agrees on should always be reflected in our laws. If Germany decided to abolish free speech and the politicians actually succeed in it, by adhering to the rules of the society, then mthis is how Germany will work from then on. If you decide your rights are more important then the lives of your fellow Americans who disagree how your society should be working, you are the tyrant. The problem with "changing society for the better" is that the Constitution is the supreme law of the land, and the 2A has not been repealed or amended. As it stands, the right "shall not be infringed." The Constitution specifies how the Constitution can be amended, so if you think things should be changed, the amendment process is your solution. The solution is not to leave it in the hands of a couple of judges who are essentially deciding what's best for society, without adhering to the lawmaking & amending process prescribed by the Constitution. Bolded part is literally how we got the current state of gun control. One 5-4 Supreme Court decision dramatically changed the understood meaning of the second amendment.
Both perspectives must be examined. Take the other side. People dramatically changed the meaning of the second amendment long after passage. Finally, a group of aggrieved citizens righted that wrong by taking their case to court, and that court’s majority spent the whole time arguing based on the relevant historical documents. They looked back to the past to blow away the intervening forgetfulness or plain misreadings. What changes is who you define to be the “out group” and who are the good guys allowed to call it the “understood meaning.” Heller has both sides arguing which is which.
In this very month, the state, the court, and various citizens argue about what’s the real meaning and what’s a perverted meaning of second amendment protections. New York State rushed to repeal a law of questionable legality after the Supreme Court agreed to hear a case challenging it. New York Times writeup. Is the state flip flopping as it wishes to gut court cases, or is it defending itself rightly from a unfriendly court majority? Are the threats contained in merely writs of cert sufficient to protect liberty? The article is a good background read.
Three city residents and the New York State Rifle and Pistol Association sued to challenge the law but lost in Federal District Court in Manhattan and in the United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit. A unanimous three-judge panel of the Second Circuit ruled that the ordinance passed constitutional muster.
After the Supreme Court granted review, the city repealed its law, apparently fearful of a loss that could sweep away other gun control regulations, too. For good measure, New York State enacted a law allowing people with premises licenses to take their guns to their homes and businesses and to shooting ranges and competitions, whether in the city or not.
I see no reason to privilege certain speakers or groups as possessing definitive understood wisdom. Heller should be examined on the merits of both originalist-style arguments, for and against. The current abuses (if you have two houses, you must possess two guns ... and TWO courts are chill with it ... but the mere granting of cert for Supremes is enough to induce panic rofl) prove more maintenance of this civil right is needed at the Supreme Court level.
|
|
|
It's totally unsure what level of success that represents.
After mosque shootings, New Zealand’s weapons buyback runs into an obstacle: gun owners
CHRISTCHURCH, New Zealand — New Zealanders had until Friday to surrender banned firearms under a mandatory government buyback after the country's deadliest terrorist attack. But not all gun owners have heeded the call, raising questions about its effectiveness and offering lessons for gun-control advocates in the United States.
The Pacific nation outlawed semiautomatics and most high-powered military-style firearms after a gunman killed 51 people at two mosques in Christchurch on March 15. The trial of Brenton Tarrant, the alleged shooter, is set to begin in June.
To get guns out of circulation, Prime Minister Jacinda Ardern turned to a method Australia implemented in the 1990s — buying back existing firearms while giving owners a grace period before their weapons would become illegal. Ardern's center-left government set aside about $110 million to compensate owners.
"We have moved to stop the sale, and now we've moved to stop the ongoing circulation of these weapons," she said in introducing the legislation.
The approach won wide public support and near-unanimous bipartisan backing in New Zealand, as well as praise from some quarters in the United States. Prominent politicians such as Sen. Bernie Sanders (I-Vt.), a Democratic presidential candidate, and former congressman Beto O'Rourke (D-Tex.) have proposed similar measures.
About 47,000 firearms have been collected, and about 2,000 others have been modified to become lawful, New Zealand police figures show.
[New Zealand passes law banning most semiautomatic weapons]
A government-commissioned assessment by the accounting firm KPMG estimated that the number of banned guns could be between 50,000 and 170,000. If the median of that range were correct, more than half of the prohibited firearms would be unaccounted for; the precise figure is unknown because New Zealand until this year lacked a registry for military-style semiautomatics.
With the amnesty expiring, the nation's largest gun-rights group this week declared the buyback an "unmitigated failure," citing the group's research. Some two-thirds of weapons banned after the Christchurch massacre remain in the hands of New Zealanders, according to the Council of Licensed Firearms Owners, making those gun owners liable to five years' imprisonment.
The buyback "lacked fair and reasonable compensation for legally purchased items," said the group's secretary, Nicole McKee, who argued that Australia's buyback had incentivized gun owners by offering higher compensation for their weapons, as well as a longer time frame.
In New Zealand, compensation rates range from 95 percent for new or near-new weapons to 25 percent for those in poor condition. Some owners appear to be holding out for a better offer, though the government has ruled that out.
Officials are hailing the policy as a success. "I just do not believe there's 170,000. I believe we've got the majority of these guns in," Police Minister Stuart Nash told New Zealand's national broadcaster on Tuesday.
Advocacy group Gun Control NZ stressed that the buyback was only one aspect of the government's wider policy response, along with tougher licensing, registration and stronger enforcement powers.
Nik Green, the group's co-founder, said it was difficult at this point to form a definitive judgment on the success of the buyback.
"On the one hand, taking around 50,000 of these weapons out of the community is a clearly positive step," she said. "On the other hand, we don't know what proportion of all prohibited firearms this represents. If we use the lower-bound estimates, it's a pretty good result; if we use the higher ones, it's less so."
Whatever the outcome, it's doubtful New Zealand's approach would be feasible in the United States, said Eugene Volokh, a conservative blogger and legal scholar at the University of California at Los Angeles.
"The great majority of American rifles and handguns are semiautomatic. I can't imagine American gun owners going along with this, even to the modest level of compliance that New Zealand seems to have gotten," he said.
New Zealand's gun culture differs from that of the United States, where the right to bear arms is enshrined in the Constitution's Second Amendment. While firearms ownership is not unusual in rural communities for hunting or culling purposes in New Zealand, it is rare to see a weapon in an urban home.
Police estimate that legally owned firearms in New Zealand numbered up to 1.2 million in 2014, broadly in line with a more recent study by the Small Arms Survey, run by the Graduate Institute of International and Development Studies in Geneva. That equates to about 26 civilian-held firearms for every 100 people — far lower than the United States but almost twice that of Australia, whose buyback resulted in the surrender of more than 600,000 weapons.
In New Zealand, lobbyists on both sides of the debate have called for an extension of the amnesty period to allow for more guns to be collected. But authorities have declined.
Polls show the public strongly supports gun control. Nonetheless, the buyback has drawn pushback from a modestly sized but vocal protest movement, spurred by frustration over compensation rates, the speed of the legislative changes, late adjustments to the list of banned weapons and even a data breach on an online registry.
Their concerns were heightened by the introduction in October of armed police patrols in New Zealand cities, which have already featured in two fatal encounters.
Travis Poulson, a 38-year-old hunting enthusiast from Auckland, said there was resentment toward the police. He added that he believes the Christchurch mosque attacks could have been prevented if the alleged attacker's gun license had been subject to more stringent checks.
"It is the public that are paying the price through no fault of their own," he said.
Washington Post (paywalled)
The amnesty has now expired, so now thousands of New Zealanders are criminals subject to five years imprisonment. Or I should say, somewhere between 1/3 to 2/3 of NZ residents who owned these firearms chose to violate law rather than give them up. These residents won't answer future government surveys to determine the success of the program.
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
