Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

This is why Gun Control is Contentious

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    #31
    Originally posted by Krampus View Post
    You must decide if you speak of the Natural Law as Thomas Aquinas did, based on the idea that man is held above the standards of an animal, and that there are certain natural moralities because they were laid down by a moral creator, in whose image man was cast, and man has some obligation to live up to that higher purpose.

    Or, is man just an animal, and any animal has the moral right to act in its own interests, whether peremptorily or otherwise, because it is the nature of animals to prey on other animals.

    Or is man the beneficiary of a social contract with other men, and therefore bound by the terms of that social contract, having participated in its benefits.

    Or, shall we be practical about the matter, and take the utilitarian approach, and do that which maximizes the good for the most people, and minimizes the evil for the most people.

    Or perhaps nothing really matters, as we are all guaranteed to die, and we, ourselves, other people, and our entire planet are insignificant in the universe.

    There are other approaches, but the ones I list above are common points of view to start with in the Western culture.
    Well if you just lay it all out like that...

    I guess I’m just trolling a bit by rehashing old ideas anyone can bother to look more deeply into on their own.

    But I would peg the natural order as your second part ( minus any morality) mixed with the last example.


    Morality I believe was developed to overcome the natural order be the use of examples 3 and 4.
    Last edited by lant3rn; 12/12/2019 8:20am, .

    Comment


      #32
      Originally posted by Krampus View Post
      Groups working together need to work together.

      An agreed upon moral framework is optional in that regard.

      Mercenaries have been popular and effective throughout history because they kill for money.

      One could argue that having the integrity to kill the people one agrees to kill and not take the money and kill the patron is a moral code, I suppose.

      But so long as the money is paid and the killing continues, with or without morals, even solely out of pure respective self-interest, such activity may still be effective in its intended purpose.
      Exchanging money is a form of shared trust. So I’ll use that to illustrate that the moral framework isn’t optional in your example; it’s just monetized.
      Last edited by lant3rn; 12/12/2019 8:20am, .

      Comment


        #33
        No. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is the bit of the structural document that made this country an actual country that protects.my.riggt to bear arms by saying the government can't fuck with it. Gun laws beyond that are going to infringe. You don't need to affirm something that's already pretty absolute. The current state of affairs is the result of a century of some horrifically statist jurisprudence.

        Comment


          #34
          Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
          No. "The right to bear arms shall not be infringed" is the bit of the structural document that made this country an actual country that protects.my.riggt to bear arms by saying the government can't fuck with it. Gun laws beyond that are going to infringe. You don't need to affirm something that's already pretty absolute. The current state of affairs is the result of a century of some horrifically statist jurisprudence.
          That’s the federal though, are state laws, that uphold that same right, redundant?

          Comment


            #35
            Ever since the 14th amendment was passed? Yes.

            Comment


              #36
              Originally posted by It is Fake View Post
              https://www.sacbee.com/news/californ...238203004.html

              Yes, I believe both sides fear monger and exaggerate to make their point. Yet, this is the exact type of issue I have as a gun owner. Most gun owners want gun control, but there are too many stories like this one.
              Important and unmentioned number from this were the 25,420 rejections that were cleared up within a few weeks time.

              A lot of these were mere paperwork issues caused by applicants filling out paperwork by hand, not updating info, etc., so blaming The System is a bit off center. The System here just collects and compares the results of the paperwork.

              Most FID applications in NJ for example are written in by hand. Do you have any idea of how badly people write these days, by hand? Terrible. GIGO. These are database issues that will clear up over time, like with no fly lists, predator lists, etc.
              Last edited by W. Rabbit; 12/12/2019 11:40am, .

              Comment


                #37
                Originally posted by ghost55 View Post
                Ever since the 14th amendment was passed? Yes.
                The privileges and immunities clause? You believe that applies to the second amendment? Does it apply it to the other amendments?

                I think you would be better off going with article six.

                Also just because a law is redundant why would that also make it infringing?

                Or are you ready to admit that your original argument was not sound?

                Comment


                  #38
                  Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                  You have the inherent capacity (on your own) to prevent anyone or any group from inflicting harm on you?
                  Are you some Demi god I have not heard of yet?
                  No, Motherfucker. Im armed, trained and motivated to kick ass for freedom, justice and the American way.

                  You're welcome to test this just like anyone else. All you have to do is nut up , show up and start shit with the scary man who owns a gun.

                  Moron .

                  Comment


                    #39
                    Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                    The privileges and immunities clause? You believe that applies to the second amendment? Does it apply it to the other amendments?

                    I think you would be better off going with article six.

                    Also just because a law is redundant why would that also make it infringing?

                    Or are you ready to admit that your original argument was not sound?
                    Ghost is, of course, an idiot. But in this case he is correct.

                    The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, against the states.

                    Your better argument here would be that there is no such thing as an absolute or unlimited right. All rights have some level of infringement in their application. And to make a blanket statement about such a thing is just as silly as the idiotic idea that "taxation is theft" while driving on public roads, using a public water treatment system, and benefiting from public funded law enforcement.

                    The fact is we DO live in a society, and all societies place limits on the rights of their individual members so that they may more effectively live together in peace.
                    Now, as to whether any SPECIFIC gun regulation is an acceptable infringement for it's given purpose...? That is an open question that the Supreme Court must decide on each basis.

                    Comment


                      #40
                      Originally posted by AcerTempest View Post
                      Ghost is, of course, an idiot. But in this case he is correct.

                      The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, against the states.

                      Your better argument here would be that there is no such thing as an absolute or unlimited right. All rights have some level of infringement in their application. And to make a blanket statement about such a thing is just as silly as the idiotic idea that "taxation is theft" while driving on public roads, using a public water treatment system, and benefiting from public funded law enforcement.

                      The fact is we DO live in a society, and all societies place limits on the rights of their individual members so that they may more effectively live together in peace.
                      Now, as to whether any SPECIFIC gun regulation is an acceptable infringement for it's given purpose...? That is an open question that the Supreme Court must decide on each basis.
                      Well that was a very well put and succinct answer, thank you.

                      Comment


                        #41
                        Originally posted by Mr. Machette View Post
                        No, Motherfucker. Im armed, trained and motivated to kick ass for freedom, justice and the American way.

                        You're welcome to test this just like anyone else. All you have to do is nut up , show up and start shit with the scary man who owns a gun.

                        Moron .
                        Do want to be hunted down in some kind of vendetta fight to the death?

                        If so, why?
                        Last edited by lant3rn; 12/12/2019 7:23pm, .

                        Comment


                          #42
                          Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                          Do want to be hunted down in some kind of vendetta fight to the death?
                          No but I use violent force in self defense scenarios often.

                          So if you think you've some point to prove then get in line.

                          But we've already established that you are a coward who relies on others the to do violence on your behalf. So I'm not terribly concerned. Chicken shit.

                          Comment


                            #43
                            Originally posted by AcerTempest View Post
                            Ghost is, of course, an idiot. But in this case he is correct.

                            The Supreme Court has repeatedly ruled that the 14th Amendment incorporates the Bill of Rights, including the 1st, 5th, 6th, and 8th amendments, against the states.

                            Your better argument here would be that there is no such thing as an absolute or unlimited right. All rights have some level of infringement in their application. And to make a blanket statement about such a thing is just as silly as the idiotic idea that "taxation is theft" while driving on public roads, using a public water treatment system, and benefiting from public funded law enforcement.

                            The fact is we DO live in a society, and all societies place limits on the rights of their individual members so that they may more effectively live together in peace.
                            Now, as to whether any SPECIFIC gun regulation is an acceptable infringement for it's given purpose...? That is an open question that the Supreme Court must decide on each basis.
                            Not my fault you can't comprehend the magnitude of my genius.

                            Comment


                              #44
                              Originally posted by Mr. Machette View Post
                              No but I use violent force in self defense scenarios often.

                              So if you think you've some point to prove then get in line.

                              But we've already established that you are a coward who relies on others the to do violence on your behalf. So I'm not terribly concerned. Chicken shit.
                              Wtf are you on about? did you not understand the discussion? who the fuck are those people violently attacking you all the time that require your self defense?

                              I do not believe in natural rights. We have developed rights so as to overcome the natural order; which doesn't give a shit how badass you think you are. And amazes me as why you have not been humbled by it yet.

                              Human rights are important things to protect; they are invaluable tools that help guard us against the ravages of an apathetic universe that doesn't give shit about your ego.

                              Comment


                                #45
                                Originally posted by lant3rn View Post
                                Wtf are you on about? did you not understand the discussion? who the fuck are those people violently attacking you all the time that require your self defense?

                                I do not believe in natural rights. We have developed rights so as to overcome the natural order; which doesn't give a shit how badass you think you are. And amazes me as why you have not been humbled by it yet.

                                Human rights are important things to protect; they are invaluable tools that help guard us against the ravages of an apathetic universe that doesn't give shit about your ego.
                                Now YOU'RE being an idiot. Don't imitate Ghost.
                                Natural rights are of course a fiction, but a necessary one. If we do not acknowledge some human rights as transcending any individual governments or even collection of governments authority to trample, then we must kneel before and acknowledge the authority and even moral superiority of governments. This is a far more dangerous, immoral and unhealthy thing to do than a small fiction about the natural order of things.
                                The philosopher Heinlein put it best I think: What "Right to life" has a man drowning in the ocean? The ocean will not hear his calls or pleas for mercy.
                                Yet, again, returning to my previous point about us living in a society, in order to more peacefully live with one another, we must acknowledge certain truths about humanity and certain rights that must not be morally ceded to any particular government or group.
                                And by extension, assuming you care about living in a society where your government has SOME sort of moral authority and mandate from the people, you also cannot LEGALLY cede these rights either.
                                Now, where the tricky bit of my philosophizing comes is this: Which rights are that important to YOU? What would make YOU willing to hoist black flags and start slitting throats or bomb the GPO?
                                For many on this forum, it is the right of self defense, which if one lives in America is almost entirely predicated on the right to individually own a firearm because we have an armed career criminal class in our country that makes it socially and logistically impossible to ACTUALLY disarm the bad guys while leaving the good guys their weapons.
                                Additionally, our government, like all others, has at times crossed lines and trampled the rights of individuals and small groups.
                                When those groups were ARMED and prepared to resist though, it at least makes them hesitate, and can give time for other means, more related to the 1st amendment, to be effective.
                                Now obviously this is not the case for you.
                                But again, I bring it back to my earlier question. What right WOULD you kill and die and burn the world to protect?

                                Comment

                                Collapse

                                Edit this module to specify a template to display.

                                Working...
                                X