You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 05, 2016, 04:48:12 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14756 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Offline LisztesFerenc

We were winning by any measure except that we lost?  I'm really not sure how to respond to that.

  It seems to be historical fact. The USA lost the Vietnam war because of political pressure on the home front, which would not be a consideration in a rebellion. Imagine as a child you were being beaten up by a bully, who then had to leave because his mother wanted to speak to him. You technically won, because you were bruised but still standing, but we all know how the fight would have ended if it had not been interrupted.

  Ditto on Iraq. From what I've seen, the consensus is America loses these wars because it doesn't have to win them, which again, would not apply to a revolution.

Nor am I sure how the chances of a successful revolution/insurgency/show of force, however slim, are improved by not having weapons.

  They don't. But in every year in which you do not rise in lawful rebellion, evidence strongly implies that a lack of guns leads to less deaths.

Offline Dashenka

  It seems to be historical fact. The USA lost the Vietnam war because of political pressure on the home front, which would not be a consideration in a rebellion. Imagine as a child you were being beaten up by a bully, who then had to leave because his mother wanted to speak to him. You technically won, because you were bruised but still standing, but we all know how the fight would have ended if it had not been interrupted.

  Ditto on Iraq. From what I've seen, the consensus is America loses these wars because it doesn't have to win them, which again, would not apply to a revolution.

  They don't. But in every year in which you do not rise in lawful rebellion, evidence strongly implies that a lack of guns leads to less deaths.


So you think the US would have won the Vietnam war if there hadn't been political pressure to stop it? Same for Iraq and Afghanistan? You really think the US would have won that wars?

Offline consortium11Topic starter


So you think the US would have won the Vietnam war if there hadn't been political pressure to stop it?

Yes.

By 1972 the Vietcong were largely defeated as a fighting force which is why the North Vietnamese changed to more conventional warfare in the Easter Offensive. Despite coming at a time when the US was already heavily reducing its presence and limiting itself to only supplying air support that attack failed fairly badly; in most places it was held off entirely and the one major centre to fall (Quang Tri) was recaptured a month or two later. If the US had provided the same level of air support in 1975 then it's pretty reasonable to assume that it would have been the same result; the North Vietnamese beaten back having suffered horrendous casualties and lost most of their material.

And that's with only providing air support; Nixon's Vietnamization strategy to reduce US involvement and hand over more responsibility to the South Vietnamese was largely the result of anti-war pressure back in the US. Without that the 1972 and 1975 offensives would have been the North Vietnemese trying to take on the US in a conventional war... put simply they wouldn't have stood a chance.

Online gaggedLouise

  • Quim Queen | Collaborative juicy writer
  • Champion
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jan 2011
  • Location: Scandinavia
  • Gender: Female
  • Bound, gagged and unarmed but still dangerous.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0

So you think the US would have won the Vietnam war if there hadn't been political pressure to stop it? Same for Iraq and Afghanistan? You really think the US would have won that wars?

I think it's about how one defines "to win a /particular/ war". If the U.S. had been determined to make Iraq and Afghanistan full-on American colonies, tie up enough troops, aircraft and political muscle in that and police those countries indefinitely on its own (and could have done so without worrying about other countries nearby like Iran, China or Russia) then they might have been able to achieve it. Nobody doubted in March 2003 that the Americans would be able to take Baghdad, by military force alone. But it was never the goal to set those countries up as colonies, the plan was to take it along a route where at some point there wouldn't have to be a massive U.S. or NATO force in there, and where either country was stable and stood on its own - and wasn't a haven of terrorists and militants anymore.

I think it could be said that the US lost (in the sense of "failed its long-term objectives") in Iraq, at least, because of three factors: 1) the war was much too divisive at home, 2) there was never a realistic, long-term plan for how to find people within the country who ccould help to lead, unify and keep it stable, and who had good democratic credibility - so that they could take over when the Americans and Brits were phased out, and 3) not enough steady cooperation with other Arab countries to help assist Iraq (and this is partly a mirror both of the Sunnite/Shiite split and the uncertainty about even more American military effort in the region).

Offline Zakharra

And believe it or not most gun owners feel the same. People are in general good at heart and in mind. Problem is lobbyists and politics. They want wither all guns or no guns at all, even depriving farmers who need to look out for their animals. Or giving guns to every psycho on the street.

And it seems only extremists ever want to talk, not the moderates who are competent and actually can get things done.  But that's always the case when it comes to politicians.


 The problem is that the Second amendment is a Right. Just like the freedom of speech and freedom of assembly and the others. Too many people on the left want to revoke/remove the 2nd, or make it so hard to get a firearm that the 2nd is effectively gone. Which puts it at a level above any normal laws. I know people bring up the example of other democracies (especially in Europe) that don't have the 2nd and how well they are doing with quite restrictive gun laws, but for all of those nations, the right to own bear weapons (including firearms) isn't a Right. For them, IIRC, it's a privilege that is granted by the government, so they are free to restrict or make illegal the ownership of firearms all they want. For us though, it is a right guaranteed in the Constitution. And Rights are not to be restricted without due process of law, on a person to person basis, so when I see calls to heavily restrict access to the 2nd across the board for all Americans, I see that as an assault on all of the Rights in the Constitution. Because if you can restrict or remove one Right that much, you open the door all the way to being able to restrict and/or removing all of the Rights of the Constitution. By successfully doing that to one, any restrictions have just been removed from the rest being targeted.

 If the 2nd was ever removed or as heavily restricted as some want, I will stand up and clap and say: 'congratulations, jackasses, you just killed all of our rights."

 To the topic of the thread:  is this guy's supposed manifesto coherent or rambling?

Offline LisztesFerenc

If the 2nd was ever removed or as heavily restricted as some want, I will stand up and clap and say: 'congratulations, jackasses, you just killed all of our rights."

  But following that logic, aren't all of your right already dead, since you are no longer allowed to sell machine guns to civilians? How did all rights ever survive that blow?

By successfully doing that to one, any restrictions have just been removed from the rest being targeted.

  Slippery slope fallacy. Sweeping changes to everyone rights have been implemented through the constitution before with the change of times, and yet apparently rights as a whole are still doing alright.
« Last Edit: August 27, 2015, 03:52:19 PM by LisztesFerenc »

Offline Zakharra

  But following that logic, aren't all of your right already dead, since you are no longer allowed to sell machine guns to civilians? How did all rights ever survive that blow?

 I can get a machinegun if I wanted to. It's legal to own one in my state, you just need to jump through a few hoops to do so, but it's not flat out illegal. I think you would be appalled at the amount of military hardware that is legally in the hands of US citizens. Everything from pistols and rifles up to tanks and military jets (I'm not sure about ships, those are real big and very expensive to maintain, as well as pay for a dock to keep them at)

  Slippery slope fallacy. Sweeping changes to everyone rights have been implemented through the constitution before with the change of times, and yet apparently rights as a whole are still doing alright.


 It's not a slippery slope fallacy because for the US, the 2nd is a right, just like the other rights enshrined in the US Constitution. And as far as I can recall, none of the changes to the Constitution have removed any rights, only added to them. You and others are talking about a flat out removal of one, or restricting it so heavily, it might as well be gone. That is a whole different ball of wax. If you can heavily restrict or outright remove one of them successfully, you throw open the door to the rest being similarly restricted or removed. Why not? Being an 'unalienable right' isn't a protection anymore since one was just restricted/removed. THAT is the danger I feel many fail to see. What protections does the rest of the rights have then? What gives the freedom of speech, or or religion or assemble or the others more protection than the freedom to bear arms? That they are rights? Well, it would appear that just being an unalienable right is no longer adequate protection anymore since one right will have just been more or less eliminated.

 

Offline eBadger

Because if you can restrict or remove one Right that much, you open the door all the way to being able to restrict and/or removing all of the Rights of the Constitution.

And as far as I can recall, none of the changes to the Constitution have removed any rights, only added to them.

It is a slippery slope fallacy.  Limitation of one right does not imply limitation of all rights. *Shrugs* We no longer have the constitutional right to buy cocaine or own slaves.  We seem to be doing okay.  Also, the whole prohibition thing; didn't turn out well, but hardly ended democracy. 

I'd rather the national discussion focus on how to preserve the right to self defense while promoting responsible use and reasonable and effective regulation. 

What gives the freedom of speech, or or religion or assemble or the others more protection than the freedom to bear arms?

You don't have the freedom of speech to make threats, or to incite a dangerous situation (the classic 'crying fire in a crowded theatre' ruling).  You can't perform human sacrifice for religion, or practice polygamy, or have a sky burial. 

None of your rights are absolute. 

Offline Zakharra

It is a slippery slope fallacy.  Limitation of one right does not imply limitation of all rights. *Shrugs* We no longer have the constitutional right to buy cocaine or own slaves.  We seem to be doing okay.  Also, the whole prohibition thing; didn't turn out well, but hardly ended democracy. 

I'd rather the national discussion focus on how to preserve the right to self defense while promoting responsible use and reasonable and effective regulation. 

You don't have the freedom of speech to make threats, or to incite a dangerous situation (the classic 'crying fire in a crowded theatre' ruling).  You can't perform human sacrifice for religion, or practice polygamy, or have a sky burial. 

None of your rights are absolute.

 It isn't a slippery slope fallacy. You're intentionally trying to blur things. There was never a right to be able to buy/own slaves or buy cocaine. I am talking about the severe limitation or outright removal of a right that is guaranteed under the Constitution. You might think that the other rights cannot be restricted so, but I will point out that if the 2nd is heavily restricted or removed, it isn't that far to say that 'inflammatory, divisive or dangerous speech' could be next. Who determines what is 'inflammatory, divisive or dangerous speech? As often as people seem to be getting offended at anything anyone can say and trying to shut up the opposition, it's not that far to limiting the freedom of speech when some outlets or topics become forbidden. The left would absolutely love to restrict the freedom of speech of their political opponents. They'd love to allow only their favorite topics be talked about and any opposition silenced. The right is the same. I am for anyone being able to say what they want (aside from the 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. Please keep in mind some basic safety issues there and don't get snarky). You might not like it, but they have the right to say it. They have just as much of a right to speak up as you.


 I am seeing a good example of people wanting to restrict the freedom of speech on another forum (Spacebattles), where there is a thread on the problem of illegal immigration and refugees flooding into Europe. Those who support that are trying to silence anyone who opposes it by calling us racist. To them, anyone who opposes illegal immigration or undocumented refugees entering your country (when the refugee/illegal's home country is hundreds of miles/kilometers and several other countries away) is a racist. To them, we hate brown people, and any talk about respecting of borders and the sanctity of law is merely an excuse to be racist (a direct quote). They are trying to shut the conversation of illegals and refugees down cold. They don't believe in the freedom of speech. They don't want to talk about it, they don't want to fix it. They want the opposition to shut up and go away. With people like that, it is very hard to have a discussion since their sole purpose is to just silence the opposition. If they could do it by restricting the freedom of speech legally, you can bet they would be doing it in a heartbeat. As it is, they are trying every other way to do it by using the racist card.

 The same thing with the freedom of assembly, or religion, or any of the other rights in the Constitution. I consider them all sacrosanct (to use the term) and something not to be messed with. Except by the due process of law, on an individual basis. Human sacrifice is murder, and hence an illegal act, I foresee polygamy being made legal within the next 20 years. Any objection to that has always been religious (although the legal ramifications of marriages and divorces of polygamists will be very interesting). Sky burials? I can see why those are forbidden; disease issues since the body is left out in the open, exposed. Burial or cremation removes the body  and renders it safe from infecting others.

You and others like you would restrict the 2nd for damned near -everyone-.  And you still have yet to explain how removing one right doesn't put any of the others under the target. If one right is removable, all of them are.

 As someone said: 'I might not like what you say, but I will fight to the death for you to say it'. I carry that to; 'You might not use all of your rights, but I will fight for you to have them all the same.'


 
Quote
None of your rights are absolute.

 Too many people believe that rights are something the government hands out, not something the government should keep its hands off of. If a right is something the government can give, then it isn't a right, but a privilege you are being extended.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Too many people believe that rights are something the government hands out, not something the government should keep its hands off of.

  Because they are. Hence why the citizens of so many countries don't have the right to bear arms, because their government either never gave it to them, or removed it. If the government has to keep their hands off rights then rights never improve either. No gay marriage, and I believe black people will be two fifths of a man.

Offline eBadger

It isn't a slippery slope fallacy. You're intentionally trying to blur things. There was never a right to be able to buy/own slaves or buy cocaine.

History disagrees with you. 

Quote
An attempt of Congress to make possession of an article -- in this case, opium -- produced in any of the states a crime would raise the gravest question of power. -US Supreme Court, United States v. De Witt, 9 Wall. 41.

They eventually agreed to allow the law based on tax regulation, but it was not a clear thing, and even the judges in favor were not pleased. 

Quote
Representatives and direct Taxes shall be apportioned among the several States which may be included within this Union, according to their respective Numbers, which shall be determined by adding to the whole Number of free Persons, including those bound to Service for a Term of Years, and excluding Indians not taxed, three fifths of all other Persons.

The particular hint on this one is that amendments 13-15 were required to remove the language. 

Who determines what is 'inflammatory, divisive or dangerous speech?

These guys.      

I am for anyone being able to say what they want (aside from the 'FIRE' in a crowded theater. Please keep in mind some basic safety issues there and don't get snarky).

Keep in mind basic safety issues?  Aren't you arguing for unrestricted gun rights? 

I was referencing a specific supreme court decision, btw, not snarking. 

Too many people believe that rights are something the government hands out, not something the government should keep its hands off of. If a right is something the government can give, then it isn't a right, but a privilege you are being extended.

A right is a legal concept that has no meaning without the active participation of a government, actually.  Just sayin'. 

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #61 on: September 24, 2015, 11:48:15 AM »
Zakharra, your position seems a little bit incoherent here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm seeing is this:

"Restricting one right endangers them all!"
"But pretty much all rights have restrictions on them."
"But those restrictions make sense!"

What you're failing to address is that they're still restrictions, and yet rights as a whole are still a thing.

Also, I'm curious where you think rights come from, if not from legal documents drafted, passed, ratified, modified, and enforced entirely by governments.

Offline Zakharra

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #62 on: September 25, 2015, 09:25:01 AM »
Zakharra, your position seems a little bit incoherent here. Please correct me if I'm wrong, but what I'm seeing is this:

"Restricting one right endangers them all!"
"But pretty much all rights have restrictions on them."
"But those restrictions make sense!"

What you're failing to address is that they're still restrictions, and yet rights as a whole are still a thing.

Also, I'm curious where you think rights come from, if not from legal documents drafted, passed, ratified, modified, and enforced entirely by governments.


 I think we are at an impasse. Mostly because for most of the world, First world included, the right to bear arms is NOT a right, but a privilege the government can take away. So you and many others see gun restrictions as being reasonable and right. Fort me it is different because it IS a right, and it is named up there with the right of the freedom of speech, movement, assembly, religion, due process and others. Right now, rights can be limited in the US, but only under due process, and for most people, on a case by case basis in the courts. You and many pothers would, at the stroke of a pen, limit or outright remove the right of everyone because YOU do not see the 2nd as a right, but a danger.  So you would flat out heavily restrict or remove it altogether.

 THAT is the danger I see. That is mainly why I see it as an attack on the restricting of a right, of potentially all rights. Because you limit or remove something hundreds of millions of Americans see as an unalienable right, you open the door to doing it to every single other right. And from what I am seeing, many don't give a damn that something is a right if restricting/removing it benefits them (you can bet that both US political parties would, if they could, restrict the rights of their opposition and in a few cases, of the American people). That's why I am against -any- restriction of any rights in the US Constitution, except under the due process of law, on a case by case basis, which is how it has been done since the country was founded. Rights should always been added to, not taken away. You, and others, want to take away this right.


 Rights are something that every person has, unalienable and (should be) unremoveable. No government grants rights. The fact people believe that is laughable because then it's not a right, but a privilege if it's the government that who has and hasn't rights. If the government can restrict/remove them at whim, then it isn't a right.  Now as I have said, there can be restrictions, but only on a case by case basis, doing it to entire swaths of the population at the stroke of a pen just because someone, or some group(s) wants to feel safer.

 Here in the US, there are many on the left and in the Democrat party that have in the past and currently, advocated the heavy restriction of the 2nd, or its outright removal as a right. They don't want it to be a right, and they do not trust the people of the US with that right. You and others want it to be harder, if not impossible, for citizens to purchase firearms. I would be willing to take reasonable steps (which we would inevitably differ on what is reasonable), on background checks, but many of those who push for gun legislation are pushing for restrictions I do not want or would tolerate because it would make it too hard to be able to purchase a firearm.

Offline LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #63 on: September 25, 2015, 09:31:14 AM »
Rights are something that every person has, unalienable and (should be) unremoveable. No government grants rights. The fact people believe that is laughable because then it's not a right, but a privilege if it's the government that who has and hasn't rights. If the government can restrict/remove them at whim, then it isn't a right.  Now as I have said, there can be restrictions, but only on a case by case basis, doing it to entire swaths of the population at the stroke of a pen just because someone, or some group(s) wants to feel safer.

  So what happens if I were to imprison someone and force them to work 60+ hour weeks in my factory for no pay? The police and the courts (i.e. arms of the government) would stop me. Without the government to enforce rights, they are meaningless and you do not have them.

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #64 on: September 25, 2015, 10:29:42 AM »
Quote from: Zakharra

 I think we are at an impasse. Mostly because for most of the world, First world included, the right to bear arms is NOT a right, but a privilege the government can take away. So you and many others see gun restrictions as being reasonable and right.
       Personally I don't care that much (at least for this particular discussion) about what other countries are doing per se.  Except that 1) some countries otherwise fairly comparable in development, civic culture and the like to the US have much lower rates of violent death and 2) it is true that, whatever one thinks of the particular prioritization of rights generally speaking, practically all rights recognized as such by the law do get reviewed and managed in certain ways by the US government in various cases.  This is nothing particularly new.  So comparisons to how other countries have OR have not chosen to regulate weapons are not off the table once you notice those. 

Quote
Fort me it is different because it IS a right, and it is named up there with the right of the freedom of speech, movement, assembly, religion, due process and others. Right now, rights can be limited in the US, but only under due process, and for most people, on a case by case basis in the courts. You and many pothers would, at the stroke of a pen, limit or outright remove the right of everyone because YOU do not see the 2nd as a right, but a danger.  So you would flat out heavily restrict or remove it altogether.
      Eh, maybe this works better if you want to quote individual people saying precisely: "We must ban all guns."  And then I'm just assuming that the writers of the 2nd were specifically imagining firearms.  I don't think it specifically says so, since you keep pointing to that line over everything else.   On the same sort of, 'This trumps everything and this is all they wrote' kind of logic, one could equally well assume they meant we should have the best weapons available anywhere, petrol bombs and humvees, tanks, and a few MiGs or nukes if one can afford them...  And hey those are arms too.  How could anyone really argue.  They just said 'arms.'  'Well read it, it's in the Constitution, it's that simple.'  That's pretty much how you're arguing. 

     I suppose someone else might also come along and say fairly enough that as long as one has access to knives, those are arms too, they didn't say you get guns, but that might be a touch more obviously against historical precedent...  Then again, in the days of the writing, 'guns' did not mean multiple accurate rapid shots and many round magazines.  Perhaps they didn't intend that at all.  Who the heck knows.

Quote
THAT is the danger I see. That is mainly why I see it as an attack on the restricting of a right, of potentially all rights. Because you limit or remove something hundreds of millions of Americans see as an unalienable right,
      Stop there for a second.  There are lots of things lots of people "see" as this or that, for example quite a few vocal ones still see God telling them who to marry and who not to...  But let's leave that alone a minute unless you mean to make it some mechanical reason to do whatever X number of people say... 

       I've been over this before in another thread on the subject somewhere.  Look at the whole Second Amendment, not just the part you keep pointing at.  They say you get to be part of a well-organized militia and then you get to bear arms.  Well in the early 20th century, the government defined a well-organized militia as something the Secretary of Defense gets to request and certify.  Would you, perhaps, care to argue that the government shouldn't be in a position to be doing this even in the modern era?  It might make your argument consistent, but I wonder where that would leave us too.  Or, how do you deal with this part of the text? 

      If you don't have a recognized militia, how do you get to bear arms?  Any two (at least American citizen) Al Qaeda in Minnesota members could gather an arsenal of weapons suitable to rampage/ outright destroy a good-sized school or office building (ahem, they're hardly the only ones), claim they had 'organized themselves' as a militia and until they bomb someone, hey that's their inalienable right?
 
Quote
Rights are something that every person has, unalienable and (should be) unremoveable. No government grants rights. The fact people believe that is laughable because then it's not a right, but a privilege if it's the government that who has and hasn't rights.
      I'd more likely buy this kind of foundation as relevant to gun issues, if there was some obvious, pressing, immediate threat to other rights that concern me as much more basic.  I'm more concerned about more people being alive to enjoy rights, than I am about having some more or less general right to gun access getting absolutely equal consideration to that. 

      IF the whole country was pretty much already overrun and people were already being slaughtered in significant numbers based on ideology or faith or more for sport, etc. (something much more horrible than the numbers kept languishing in Guantanamo, disgusting though those purposefully endless cases sometimes are on principle), then I could say, okay, there's a clear threat to life and liberty here.  And then, we might just begin to think about which is more dangerous to the fabric of society ---

      IF all that were somehow immediately pressing, then which is worse:  Having many less than experienced and probably much less organized people readily able to get assault weapons (please don't quibble there, when we get to 10 rounds a magazine and easily convertible to automatic such as would be used in such situations as I'm talking about already it's an assault, seriously), or allowing the situation to continue and knock off a few hundred people here and there in the name of whatever unsavory purpose until some less bloody order settled in?  But in that sort of situation, frankly, I also think things would be so far beyond central control as we know it today, that people would make up their own minds and do what they felt like anyway.  Although if they hadn't had some military or at least police experience to begin with, they might have a rather hard time surviving and from there making much of a dent in the social unrest, in the short run.

Quote
If the government can restrict/remove them at whim, then it isn't a right.  Now as I have said, there can be restrictions, but only on a case by case basis, doing it to entire swaths of the population at the stroke of a pen just because someone, or some group(s) wants to feel safer.
       It's been said.  Slavery was the right of a particular class and (largely) ethnic and racial segment (today we often imagine "race" to be skin tone but even then it was not nearly all that simple in law).  It was removed, although many still believe it was something that was agreed to and penned down as part of the fabric of the country's compact and therefore no one should have dared to challenge wherever having slaves was taking the whole country.

Quote
Here in the US, there are many on the left and in the Democrat party that have in the past and currently, advocated the heavy restriction of the 2nd, or its outright removal as a right. They don't want it to be a right, and they do not trust the people of the US with that right. You and others want it to be harder, if not impossible, for citizens to purchase firearms. I would be willing to take reasonable steps (which we would inevitably differ on what is reasonable), on background checks,
      You want "reasonable steps."  Quite a few would say you want it to be harder for citizens to purchase firearms.  "But, but the Constitution" they will say.  And the difference is??

Quote
but many of those who push for gun legislation are pushing for restrictions I do not want or would tolerate because it would make it too hard to be able to purchase a firearm.
      Doesn't matter.  They'll use precisely the same sort of reasoning you're using here to say don't you dare touch us.  And you shouldn't have a leg to stand on against them when they do, because the reasoning defaults to a vague and unstudied line of text in the Bill of Rights without discussing the rest of history very well.

      Many people would say there should be no "reasonable steps" such as you specify (wherever you specify them), because their rights to hold just the weapons they have now (as many and as much, shooting as fast and hard as possible!) are absolute and untouchable, look at that single line in the Constitution: everyone gets to be in that there 'militia.'  Except they don't generally want to talk about the militia requirement at all anymore, because they pretty much aren't a militia these days (except umm for the kind that goes patrolling say, the Mexican border more in defiance of what the Border Patrol says than in support of the present government).
« Last Edit: September 25, 2015, 10:49:03 AM by kylie »

Offline Lustful Bride

  • "Logic is for Squares."
  • Lady
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Jun 2014
  • Gender: Female
  • This is some personal text. There are many like it, but this one is mine!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #65 on: September 25, 2015, 05:33:19 PM »
*sits there watching* Fascinating discussions going on. Its good to see people able to think with their brains. (Unlike most politicians in the world.) Makes me glad to be part of a community like this. But it also makes me sad that I cant contribute very much to this Beyond saying I think everyone has a valid point but that there might not really be a right answer for this.

Its like asking about How much safety/government monitoring do you want VS Privacy and independence? Its a constant juggling act. And maybe that's how it should be, constantly swaying back and forth with the eras and ages we live in, instead of remaining a constant static thing.


Quote
Here in the US, there are many on the left and in the Democrat party that have in the past and currently, advocated the heavy restriction of the 2nd, or its outright removal as a right. They don't want it to be a right, and they do not trust the people of the US with that right. You and others want it to be harder, if not impossible, for citizens to purchase firearms.


Plus you know, some of them are absolute hypocrites who are an example of why people don't want to give up their guns/trust the government.

 
Case in point

(Im just amazed Mr Yee isn't being charged with supporting terrorism since he bought his weapons off of a known Terrorist group.*)

* (Morro Islamist Liberation Front)

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #66 on: September 25, 2015, 10:24:12 PM »
I think we are at an impasse. Mostly because for most of the world, First world included, the right to bear arms is NOT a right, but a privilege the government can take away. So you and many others see gun restrictions as being reasonable and right. Fort me it is different because it IS a right, and it is named up there with the right of the freedom of speech, movement, assembly, religion, due process and others. Right now, rights can be limited in the US, but only under due process, and for most people, on a case by case basis in the courts. You and many pothers would, at the stroke of a pen, limit or outright remove the right of everyone because YOU do not see the 2nd as a right, but a danger.  So you would flat out heavily restrict or remove it altogether.
You're, um, not actually addressing anything I said, which is explicitly discussing it as a right and [/i]not talking about eliminating anything[/i].

THAT is the danger I see. That is mainly why I see it as an attack on the restricting of a right, of potentially all rights. Because you limit or remove something hundreds of millions of Americans see as an unalienable right, you open the door to doing it to every single other right. And from what I am seeing, many don't give a damn that something is a right if restricting/removing it benefits them (you can bet that both US political parties would, if they could, restrict the rights of their opposition and in a few cases, of the American people). That's why I am against -any- restriction of any rights in the US Constitution, except under the due process of law, on a case by case basis, which is how it has been done since the country was founded. Rights should always been added to, not taken away. You, and others, want to take away this right.
Rights have already had broad, general restrictions slapped on them. You've been given several examples in this thread. Following your logic, the Second is already unprotected and open to restriction.

Alternatively: Maybe, just maybe, it doesn't work that way.

Also, you're taking a pretty goddamn uncharitable reading here: I and people like me want to take away every single right whose absence could possibly benefit me. It's not about, y'know, placing reasonable restrictions in order to save lives - a rationale you have already agreed with as sound and just for restriction of rights.

Rights are something that every person has, unalienable and (should be) unremoveable. No government grants rights. The fact people believe that is laughable because then it's not a right, but a privilege if it's the government that who has and hasn't rights. If the government can restrict/remove them at whim, then it isn't a right.  Now as I have said, there can be restrictions, but only on a case by case basis, doing it to entire swaths of the population at the stroke of a pen just because someone, or some group(s) wants to feel safer.
Emphasis mine. Given that bolded bit, seriously, where do you think rights come from? I am honestly baffled about this, and it seems to be a pretty important and fundamental point of civics.

Here in the US, there are many on the left and in the Democrat party that have in the past and currently, advocated the heavy restriction of the 2nd, or its outright removal as a right. They don't want it to be a right, and they do not trust the people of the US with that right. You and others want it to be harder, if not impossible, for citizens to purchase firearms. I would be willing to take reasonable steps (which we would inevitably differ on what is reasonable), on background checks, but many of those who push for gun legislation are pushing for restrictions I do not want or would tolerate because it would make it too hard to be able to purchase a firearm.
Um... you realize I live in a nation where there is a gun for every five citizens, right? In fact, there are at least two guns in my building right now. I am not, and never have been, for making it impossible to access firearms. I am for reasonable restrictions in the name of lowering the ridiculously high rate of fatalities in the US, and any reasonable restriction (including the better background checks you support) will make it harder to access guns. Because, obviously, there are a lot of people who shouldn't have guns.

Another point I'm not sure I understand and have never had anyone address: Why is the right to life less important than the right to bear arms?



Its like asking about How much safety/government monitoring do you want VS Privacy and independence? Its a constant juggling act. And maybe that's how it should be, constantly swaying back and forth with the eras and ages we live in, instead of remaining a constant static thing.
This is getting at something important, I think, though I'd not necessarily describe it as safety/monitoring vs privacy/independence. (I'm actually fairly strong on privacy*.) Rather, it's about safety and stability vs freedom of action in the public sphere - and it's important to note that the meter cannot be pegged at either end of that scale, and attempts to do so are destructive. Absolute freedom of action is anarchy; absolute stability is tyranny.

My perspective on the Second in particular is: What does this enable? WHat benefit to society is there in enshrining this as a right? I... don't see any.

*Yes, even as this applies to firearms; I would be staunchly and vehemently opposed to door to door checks to enforce my nation's firearms registry, frex. But... once you bring that gun off your property (including in its initial acquisition), you're bringing it into the public sphere, and I don't think it's unreasonable to require some sort of screening process to demonstrate responsibility before allowing you to do so.

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #67 on: September 27, 2015, 02:41:46 AM »
Quote from: Zakharra
Rights are something that every person has, unalienable and (should be) unremoveable. No government grants rights. The fact people believe that is laughable because then it's not a right, but a privilege if it's the government that who has and hasn't rights. If the government can restrict/remove them at whim, then it isn't a right.  Now as I have said, there can be restrictions, but only on a case by case basis, doing it to entire swaths of the population at the stroke of a pen just because someone, or some group(s) wants to feel safer.
Emphasis mine. Given that bolded bit, seriously, where do you think rights come from? I am honestly baffled about this, and it seems to be a pretty important and fundamental point of civics.
That was my first thought on Zakharra's statement too, but now that I think about it again, there may be some merrit to what she said. I admit that my knowledge of legal theory is pretty weak when it comes to the very basics, but isn't the idea behind laws that they only regulate exactly what they say they regulate, and that everything not covered by law in either a proscriptive or prescriptive manner is outside the sphere of legal interference? As long as the law is silent about something, that sphere of life is a place where you can do whatever you please. In so far it might actually be fair to say that governments don't grant rights. Even where it looks like the government might grant rights (e.g. cases of "affirmative action") it could be said that the government does not grant rights, but merely takes meassures to enforce rights that already exist or takes steps to ensure certain rights are not abridged.


Quote from: Zakharra
Rights are something that every person has, unalienable and (should be) unremoveable. No government grants rights. The fact people believe that is laughable because then it's not a right, but a privilege if it's the government that who has and hasn't rights. If the government can restrict/remove them at whim, then it isn't a right.  Now as I have said, there can be restrictions, but only on a case by case basis, doing it to entire swaths of the population at the stroke of a penjust because someone, or some group(s) wants to feel safer.
Now, despite what I have said above, I would actually say that government grants rights, perhaps not so much in what the rights of an individual are, but in how they are enforced. Due process is a right that can only be effective if someone put pen to paper, and, with a stroke of that mighty pen, made a law that creates meassures of law enforcement and mechanisms for the settlement of legal disputes. The right to have access to courts, the right to a fair trial by a jury of your peers, and so on ... those are rights you are granted by law, and therefore by governments that make those laws and enforce them. All the natural rights in the world will do you no good if you don't have a way to enforce those rights and protect yourself from interference with your rights. But those mechanisms are also rights that are granted by governments, as government is where the mechanisms for the enforcement of laws and rights are created in a civilized society.

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #68 on: September 27, 2015, 02:52:33 AM »
I admit that my knowledge of legal theory is pretty weak when it comes to the very basics, but isn't the idea behind laws that they only regulate exactly what they say they regulate, and that everything not covered by law in either a proscriptive or prescriptive manner is outside the sphere of legal interference?

Yes and no. That legal theory is the basic underpinning of Civil Law systems, such as those followed within most of Europe.

However within the English Common Law system and its descendants (such as my own Australian system and the United States) there is also the legal concept of Equity.
« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 02:54:02 AM by Caehlim »

Offline Cassandra LeMay

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #69 on: September 27, 2015, 04:07:21 AM »
Yes and no. That legal theory is the basic underpinning of Civil Law systems, such as those followed within most of Europe.

However within the English Common Law system and its descendants (such as my own Australian system and the United States) there is also the legal concept of Equity.
My understanding of Equity was that it is not so much a source of law as a set of law enforcement measures a court can resort to? Similar measures to at least some Equity meassures (as far as I understand the common law term) do actually exist in civil law jurisdictions, for example in the form of cease-and-decist orders issued by a court, but I always considered those more a part of the "law enforcement" side of things, not an instrument of creating legal doctrine. Sort of like a referee halting a game till a decision has been made if a certain event on the field was within the rules or not, or issuing a yellow or red card on the spot, if you'll allow the sport analogy. Those meassures still have to have a basis in some other law to become effective. But you may be right that perhaps I am coming to this from too much of a civil law perspective to get all the finer points that may be relevant in a common law system.

Offline Caehlim

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #70 on: September 27, 2015, 05:28:01 AM »
In the present day it's hard to see the difference between Civil and Common law because they've converged together over the last seven centuries. However the most important thing to remember about Common Law is that adding laws by legislature is an afterthought to the system. While in the present day we have quite a complete set of laws instituted by parliament, back in the 13th century as the Common Law system was being established laws were created not by acts of parliament but rather by judges from the assizes (traveling courts) establishing precedent. It's inherently impossible for the system to only cover established laws, since it was instituted without any established laws.

You're right that it's far more of a theoretical distinction now, with Common Law being weighed down by so much parliamentary legislature (which is given supremacy over precedent). However the legal theory of Common Law was never intended to have a complete codified set of laws.

Offline Ephiral

  • The Firebrand Logica | Gender Ninja | Their Toy
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: In between the lines, outside of the law, underneath the veil
  • Carpe diem per sol delenda.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #71 on: September 27, 2015, 09:17:16 AM »
Emphasis mine. Given that bolded bit, seriously, where do you think rights come from? I am honestly baffled about this, and it seems to be a pretty important and fundamental point of civics.
That was my first thought on Zakharra's statement too, but now that I think about it again, there may be some merrit to what she said. I admit that my knowledge of legal theory is pretty weak when it comes to the very basics, but isn't the idea behind laws that they only regulate exactly what they say they regulate, and that everything not covered by law in either a proscriptive or prescriptive manner is outside the sphere of legal interference? As long as the law is silent about something, that sphere of life is a place where you can do whatever you please. In so far it might actually be fair to say that governments don't grant rights. Even where it looks like the government might grant rights (e.g. cases of "affirmative action") it could be said that the government does not grant rights, but merely takes meassures to enforce rights that already exist or takes steps to ensure certain rights are not abridged.
Seems to me that there's an important distinction between "thing you can do" and "right", and that the distinction lies in exactly what Zakharra was talking about: Rights, as a rule, have fairly strict protections and enforcement mechanisms that are difficult to override or overturn.

The problem with Zakharra's argument is that those are legal protections and enforcements, created by... well, a government. It requires government action to elevate something from "thing you can do" to "right that cannot be denied without reason". And if a government can elevate something to the category of "right", generally it can also remove something from that category, or limit it, or decide what constitutes a valid reason. The method to do so might be difficult (in fact, it probably should, if rights are to have teeth), but it should always be there, because our concepts of justice evolve.
« Last Edit: September 28, 2015, 11:01:07 AM by Ephiral »

Offline kylie

  • Bratty Princess of Twisty, Creeping Secrets. Frilly | Fussy | Framed | Dreamy | Glam | Risky | Sporty | Rapt | Tease | Ironic | Shadowed | Struggling | Whispery | Bespelled
  • Liege
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: Apr 2005
  • Location: Somewhere in the future.
  • Darkly sweet femme for rich & insidious scenarios.
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 1
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #72 on: September 27, 2015, 09:33:15 PM »
      There's the concept or philosophy, if you like, of rights -- where rights are stuff people should have and no one should touch this or that in principle.  But when it gets around to the institutionalization of rights to have consistency over much time and space, then people are generally asking for things from the government these days (whether it's to have it or restrict it or modify it or take it away). 

     It might be another matter if, say, the government was on some island weeks or months of risky, hard ocean sailing away and it was not providing hardly any services or benefits in return for oodles of taxes and there was no representation to speak of, and people were actually largely self-sufficient and able (and more generally interested) to fight that government too...   ::)  But with a few exceptions, these days it's more people wanting their own little areas or homes to be exceptional and/or overarmed at the same time.  Not so much about common good or common threat generally, except occasionally outlandish stories of FEMA plots or just general dislike for most any modern central government on principle.  Granted there are perhaps a few people who just really feel they need big, fast-burst rifles to protect themselves, but by and large I have the impression it's more very conservative state talk particularly in places where if you look, other issues like separation of church and state - women's rights - racism are often all heated up too. 

« Last Edit: September 27, 2015, 09:38:56 PM by kylie »

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #73 on: September 28, 2015, 02:20:05 AM »
The problem with Zakharra's argument is that those are legal protections and enforcements, created by... well, a government.

This. 

A right is, by definition, a cause for which you may seek legal remedy: writs to cease or perform an action, overturning laws, recompense, and so forth. 

Because the execution of a right requires a court, a right has no meaning and ceases to exist without a government that will enforce it.  And that involves interpreting and regulating.   

Offline Retribution

  • Lord
  • Addict
  • *
  • Join Date: Feb 2013
  • Location: First star to the right straight on till morning
  • Gender: Male
  • When I'm good I'm good when I'm bad I'm better
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #74 on: September 28, 2015, 11:10:53 AM »
Guys as many of you know I do not comment on political anymore. But allow me to enlighten some of you a bit. I am a firearms rights guy as many of you know. You can debate the topic as deep as you like, but there is something very basic here. There is a point with firearms ownership where ~I~ will not give anymore. If the US government wants to take anymore past this point they are going to have to fight me in a very literal sense of the word. There are tens of thousands of people who believe just like me. Just look up total membership of the NRA.

So now we are talking about having reached a point of open rebellion. The rebels, that would be folks like me if we got that far god forbid, would loose. But well it would still be a very, very, ugly matter. There are certain points where people like me will back up no further. Let us all hope and pray it never comes to that.

But well if it does to quote the movie Tombstone "say when." Argue all you want about what kind of right something is, but I have a very deep held beliefs about when enough is enough and am willing to put my money where my mouth is.