Discussion Topic |
|
This thread has been locked |
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 11:57am PT
|
Yeah, except for the fact that that wouldn't change the underlying right to which the second amendment refers.
Oh please - the natural rights argument for guns is beyond tired and lame. Right now it's a right whose scope is entirely inappropriately defined by a highly activist decision of a conservative majority of the court. It, like citizens united, should be tossed on it's ears.
|
|
paul roehl
Boulder climber
california
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:11pm PT
|
Ever wonder what happened to civil discourse in this country? The constant name calling and road rage back and forth on this and other threads. Ever read the comments on a yahoo news article: awful stuff? Everybody's either a "libtard" or a "redumblican." Whatever happened to reasoned argument? I think the internet, talk radio and the Self-righteousness of partisan politics have so divided the country. It looks like we're ready for another civil war. People need to get a grip on reality and put away the gratification they get from nastiness; it's a waste.
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:14pm PT
|
Get rid of him and many of the problems will be instantly solved...
No it wouldn't, the puppets are just for show. It took me a long time to figure that out too.
This is yet another distraction in the circus. No different then woman's rights, LGBT issues, etc.
The real MIC that runs this empire couldn't care less what small arms are in closets around the country. But this will be debated endlessly to divide and distract the herd. Get 'em clawing at each others throat's worrying about nonsense when this country murders around the world nonstop.
|
|
jonnyrig
climber
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:17pm PT
|
So, just to be clear, some of y'all who think the war on drugs is failing also think that some new gun legislation would be thoroughly effective. Riiggghhht?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:31pm PT
|
The real MIC that runs this empire ...
Ah, not just anti-government, but conspiracy shadow government. Got it. Gotta git me a gun...
|
|
fear
Ice climber
hartford, ct
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:34pm PT
|
healyje,
There's nothing "shadowy" about it. Open your eyes and see how many countries we're either actively invading, occupying, or supporting those who do. How many hundreds of billions do we hand to Israel and Saudi Arabia. Right in the open, nothing hidden.
It's not hard.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:42pm PT
|
Oh please - the natural rights argument for guns is beyond tired and lame.
Then, simply, move to another nation that believes that "rights" are just vague ideas that should properly be subject to the whims of government. That's the nation you want, and there are plenty like that. By contrast, this nation is the only one that still enshrines in its founding documents that "tired and lame" notion. You've got lots of options. People like me have only one. So, leave this option for people like me, and you can take your pick of other alternatives.
|
|
10b4me
Mountain climber
Retired
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:53pm PT
|
Yeah, except for the fact that that wouldn't change the underlying right to which the second amendment refers.
I've always wondered, does the 2nd amendment also give someone the right to kill someone?
Ever wonder what happened to civil discourse in this country? The constant name calling and road rage back and forth on this and other threads. Ever read the comments on a yahoo news article: awful stuff? Everybody's either a "libtard" or a "redumblican." Whatever happened to reasoned argument? I think the internet, talk radio and the Self-righteousness of partisan politics have so divided the country. It looks like we're ready for another civil war. People need to get a grip on reality and put away the gratification they get from nastiness; it's a waste. I agree with you, unfortunately, I get caught up in the heat of the argument, and at times am guilty of uncivil discourse.
I will say this though. I do think that trump does incite people to act irrationally, and that unfortunately, can lead to violence. I don't recall people being as worked up over bush(eventhough he was pretty unpopular).
|
|
crankster
Trad climber
No. Tahoe
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 12:54pm PT
|
Paul, Trump won the most powerful political position in the world by completely abandoning any hint of civil discourse. In fact, he did the opposite. Obviously, it works, so don't look for a return to reasoned discussion happening any time soon.
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 01:02pm PT
|
Then, simply, move to another nation that believes that "rights" are just vague ideas that should properly be subject to the whims of government.
Oh please yet again. Pedaphelia and slavery could just as easily be rights under such a belief system and philosophy where 'rights' are just in the eye and interests of the beholder.
|
|
SteveW
Trad climber
The state of confusion
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 01:08pm PT
|
Amendment II
A well regulated militia (italics mine), being necessary to the
security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear
Arms, shall not be infringed.
Everybody thinks this means EVERYBODY. It's NOT!
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 01:35pm PT
|
Spot on, DMT. Thanks.
I've always wondered, does the 2nd amendment also give someone the right to kill someone?
The second amendment doesn't give any right at all. It references a right that all of our founders took to be pre-existing.
If you're asking, "Can I legitimately murder somebody because the second amendment says I can?" well, I think pretty obviously: No!
But the second amendment does presume the pre-existing right to life and its implied right of self-defense. Killing somebody in self-defense is not murder, is nowhere in this nation illegal, and is presumed to be moral by the second amendment.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 01:37pm PT
|
Pedaphelia and slavery could just as easily be rights under such a belief system and philosophy where 'rights' are just in the eye and interests of the beholder.
Joe, you honestly have me confused about what you really think. You apparently believe that pedaphelia and slavery are wrong, but, given many things you've said, I can't imagine how you derive that they are.
What do you think that a "right" actually is? Any right, forget about "inalienable," "negative," or "positive" rights. Just rights in general. What do you think a "right" is?
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 02:48pm PT
|
...but could never get behind legislation from the bench.
I dunno, it sounds like you already have if you accept DC v Heller - the very definition of activist legislation from the bench.
What do you think that a "right" actually is? Any right, forget about "inalienable," "negative," or "positive" rights. Just rights in general. What do you think a "right" is?
More to the point is who decides what a "right" is given they don't fall from a god's pocket.
|
|
Jon Beck
Trad climber
Oceanside
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 02:51pm PT
|
That's why I would back an effort to legally modify the 2nd amendment but could never get behind legislation from the bench.
Agreed, legislate from the legislature so the bench does not have to. problem is the NRA has the legislature sucking its money teat.
The NRA does not believe there should be any legislation regarding guns, that the Constitution is sufficient by itself. That is utter nonsense, both in a legal sense, and in common sense.
|
|
drF
Trad climber
usa
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 03:05pm PT
|
The American Right Wing have a terrorist network just like ISIS
You can join and visit hundreds of web sites that can help radicalize you into a terrorist
They are called the Alt-Right, Neo-Nazis, KKK, White Supremacists, White Nationalists, Freedom patriots etc.
It's Trump inspired radicalism and terrorism now
A self-proclaimed Burny-luvin' Repub-hater looses his nut and goes AWOL.
You politard clownz panties are in a major, smelly bunch. Especially Garbledoosh
This shooter azzhole was inspired by REAL haters...like Craig Fry.
What a troubled soul...Fryl00n that is.
Re-read his quote above. Fuk**g nut job
**Russ is winning biggly
|
|
healyje
Trad climber
Portland, Oregon
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 03:15pm PT
|
Given the preponderance of such shooters are from the right, it was only a matter of time before folks on the far left picked up on the alt-right's dominant love-theme of arming themselves against the federal government. Their aim will no doubt improve in time.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 03:18pm PT
|
More to the point is who decides what a "right" is given they don't fall from a god's pocket.
Well, see, I do have a theory about that, which I've expressed. You reject it (without any substantive reason that I've been able to detect), yet I don't see what you have in its place.
That's what I'm trying to get clear about. At times you seem like a very radical moral relativist. But then you'll refer to certain "wrongs" as though they are just obviously and objectively wrong. I don't see any way you can sustain that view, but I'm not even sure that you hold it.
So, bottom line is that I feel like I'm arguing against a moving target, and I'd really like to get clear about what you do think is the basis for calling any behavior "wrong," such that, presumably, there "ought" to be a law against that behavior.
Again, you reject "natural rights" (which I actually don't hold to, but have a much more Kantian notion), but I don't see your replacement.
Please advise. Thank you.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 03:25pm PT
|
All rights are ultimately conveyed by those that enforce them, no need to invoke the divine.
Even apart from invoking the divine, our answer had better be more robust than this! Otherwise, what you mean by "right" is something like "whatever a bare majority, or a more powerful faction, can force upon others." But I don't see how that can be the correct answer, because then....
1) You have no way to "reform" society; you can at most attempt to "gain the upper hand" and impose your own will instead, but that doesn't suggest that you have any "right" to do so;
2) You have no way to talk in moral terms at all: Hitler was "right" for him and his society, and, had that perspective won by force of arms, it would then be by definition "right" for the whole world;
3) The strong will ALWAYS prevail over the weak, in which case the entire liberal perspective crumbles, as there's not even a good reason to "fight" against "oppression." What the weak call "oppression" is literally just what "right" is!
And so on.
This nation was designed to ensure that rights would NOT get trampled upon by ANY form of faction, be it the faction of the bare majority or the faction of the strong, the wealthy, or the most clever. Yes, such factions "win" at times and for a time, but our nation is designed to provide the means by which such factions can, non-violently, be overturned.
Take away a robust notion of rights, and the whole house of cards falls down, leaving us with only the prospect of violence.
|
|
madbolter1
Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
|
|
|
Jun 15, 2017 - 04:09pm PT
|
those would be the rights we have until and unless we take them back
Ah, I think I see the issue. It's the word "have," which I take you to mean, "practically can expect recognition of." You are reading "rights" as a sort of "agreement" that people have or don't have, where in a totalitarian society, you "have" no particular rights because there is no "agreement" that you "have" them.
Am I on the right track in understanding what you mean by "have" here?
|
|
|
SuperTopo on the Web
|
Let us know!