Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Adrift]

If this thread gets a little too heavy, feel free to head on over to my sumo thread and weigh in there. Fat chance of that, no doubt (all you cultureless Americans), but I'll extend the invitation.

Weirdo.

[JimL]

Idealistic claptrap.

Well thats true, you have a point, sometimes, like the present, the system can become overwhelmingly corrupt. For instance, look who is running our government now! But ultimately, thats the peoples fault.

[rogue06]

Literally everything you just listed are tightly regulated industries.

You think you need a permit or a license to use your TV, radio, phone or go on the internet? How about the toilet (THAT would be interesting), AC or heater?

Sure the manufacture of some of them as well as their instillation are tightly regulated but then so are firearms. But not their ownership and use.

[rogue06]

The founders had no way to know what was coming in any area. They set limits to the government to protect freedom and allow "the people" rather than government to decide what was best for them.

It goes back on how you view the people. If you see them as trustworthy and productive citizens until proven otherwise or merely as part of an unruly crowd that needs to be lorded over, controlled, supervised, and taken care of.

[Sparko]

Well thats true, you have a point, sometimes, like the present, the system can become overwhelmingly corrupt. For instance, look who is running our government now! But ultimately, thats the peoples fault.

JimL, I am confident that if Trump announced today that he was making all guns illegal and confiscating them, you would be busting up Tweb with your outrage at gun control and how the government has no right to decide what weapons you can and cannot have, blah blah blah.

Not because you are for or against guns, but simply because Trump or a republican is doing it. If Obama said the same thing you would be cheering.

You have no credibility any more, JimL. You are just a transparent liberal talking point shill.

[rogue06]

If this thread gets a little too heavy, feel free to head on over to my sumo thread and weigh in there. Fat chance of that, no doubt (all you cultureless Americans), but I'll extend the invitation.

I see what you did there.

[JimL]

JimL, I am confident that if Trump announced today that he was making all guns illegal and confiscating them, you would be busting up Tweb with your outrage at gun control and how the government has no right to decide what weapons you can and cannot have, blah blah blah.

Not because you are for or against guns, but simply because Trump or a republican is doing it. If Obama said the same thing you would be cheering.

You have no credibility any more, JimL. You are just a transparent liberal talking point shill.

Well, your confidence is misplaced. The government can and already does put limits on certain firearms and the ownership thereof. It also seems that most of you agree with that, so I'm guesing that you're all just a bit confused.

[Jedidiah]

Yeah! In addition to creating an oppressive police state we just can not eliminate all danger.


Bankrupt ourselves.jpg

[JimL]

Yeah! In addition to creating an oppressive police state we just can not eliminate all danger.


[ATTACH=CONFIG]24407[/ATTACH]

Tell that to the idiot you elected.

[One Bad Pig]

Well then what is your point.? If you agree that according to the 2nd amendment, that ones right to bear arms isn't unlimited, and that the government can set those limits, then what exactly is your argument?

My point was that Sea of Red's assertions were wrong, Jim. I was merely correcting him.

[Mountain Man]

Tell that to the idiot you elected.

When has the President ever promised us "absolute security"?

[Cerebrum123]

If this thread gets a little too heavy, feel free to head on over to my sumo thread and weigh in there. Fat chance of that, no doubt (all you cultureless Americans), but I'll extend the invitation.

You just want people to join a thread where you can throw your weight around.

[JimL]

My point was that Sea of Red's assertions were wrong, Jim. I was merely correcting him.

Well SoR's assertion wasn't necessarily wrong. If a well regulated militia was not the purpose intended in the 2nd amendment, if it were only about the peoples right to bear arms, then there would be no need to mention anything about a well regulated militia in the clause. They go hand in hand. Had it only been about the peoples right to bear arms, then thats all that need have been said.

[Joel]

If you're born into a nation, it seems that most citizens don't intentionally consent, they just know no other way.

No doubt. That's a fact convenient for the state, that most people don't question it. Rulers have long relied on that.

Inalienable means not able to be given away or otherwise surrendered.

According to who, and by what authority?

The dictionary, and historical usage of the term?
Or if you mean who says a particular right can't be transferred, I think it often has to do with the nature of the thing. Theft is taking what is someone else's without their consent. Rape is sexual intercourse without their consent. In any given instance, the person can choose to consent. But they can't possibly transfer away their ability to choose to consent or not. That is a faculty of their own mind. That our mental faculties are uniquely and inherently our own is a fact of human nature.

There isn't any other competing theories? For instance, I can imagine someone arguing that, for instance, no one can "own" property. They may claim property, but ownership of, say, land is in name and aggressive claim only, but land belongs to no one, or it belongs to everyone.

It's a question of who has the right to user/control the thing. If no one can own anything, then no one has the right to do anything, and everyone dies. If everyone owns a thing, then again there is no answer to the problem that not everyone can use a rivalrous good (or not at the same time). There will be conflict, and it has to be settled who has the right to determine its use at the time, which is a question of property right. Even socialists have to assert property ownership (e.g. owned by the government/the majority vote). Every political thinker is necessarily putting forth a theory of property rights.

Huh. I assumed that that claim was exclusive to things like land.

It includes any rivalrous good, including the shirt on your back, and the stuff in the fridge out of which you plan to make a sandwich for lunch, and the fridge.

My grandfather owned lots of land. The government, without his consent, took his land in order to run a highway through it. Was that illegal?

Sounds like it was theft, since taking that which is another's without their consent is theft. As for whether it was illegal, it depends on the precise meaning. If it refers to what statutes claim to permit, there have been many unjust statutes. Some prominent political theorists have taken the position that an unjust statute cannot truly be said to be a law, even though it is colloquially called a "law".

So, do you believe that you should legally be able to own and harvest poppy fields in America, for the processing and possession of heroin?

Again you refer to the United States as a whole, in which case, no, there is no federal authority to legislate that for all the states. So, no, there should be no U.S.-wide law against it. From a U.S. perspective, the matter must be left to the states.

As for whether any given state should outlaw it, my personal position is that it should be legal in a state. Primarily because of property rights. But also because I think the war on drugs causes worse consequences than it is able to prevent. To bring it back to mass shootings, when people cite really high rates of mass shootings in the U.S., they are getting that by including gang battles and hits, which happen due to the black market created by the war on drugs. So if people are really interested in reducing mass shootings, the most effective step would be to end the war on drugs, and that would have numerous additional benefits besides.

According to whom? And why should anyone recognize that authority?

Investigating the various arguments for the existence of rights, including their grounding in human nature, is a big discussion of its own. To start, do you agree that there exists natural morality--morality that's not just the creation of human beings? If not, it would seem that no humans can create moral obligation either, because, as you say, why should anyone recognize their authority?

[One Bad Pig]

Well SoR's assertion wasn't necessarily wrong. If a well regulated militia was not the purpose intended in the 2nd amendment, if it were only about the peoples right to bear arms, then there would be no need to mention anything about a well regulated militia in the clause. They go hand in hand. Had it only been about the peoples right to bear arms, then thats all that need have been said.

Much easier to set up false dichotomies and parse words than bother to actually learn what drove them, eh?