The Gun debate sandbox

Search
Go

Discussion Topic

Return to Forum List
This thread has been locked
Messages 5521 - 5540 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 9, 2015 - 09:06pm PT
Happy birthday.

Cheers
DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 9, 2015 - 09:53pm PT
Thank you.
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 10, 2015 - 04:19am PT
madbolter posted
Ahh, another of the sheep that (wrongly) believes that the Bill of Rights GRANTED the rights to which it refers.

Not granted, made explicit and protected. How do you reconcile your utopian white male viewpoint of constitutional rights with the clear history of oppression that the majority of US residents have endured? Even WITH the explicit right of free speech one could be arrested for any myriad of "obscenity" offenses in this country right up through the 70's. Were slaves "granted" freedom? Or were they just shackled by the limits of their own consciousness, ignorant to your enlightened viewpoint on the Constitution? Oh no right, they were tortured and murdered because the Constitution didn't explicitly ban slavery so wealthy white dudes were free to infer their Constitutional right to do whatever the hell they wanted to.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 10, 2015 - 07:00am PT
BTW madbolter1 I owe you an answer on the Whiskey rebellion and George Washington sending in the military. You asked me why that was important to the topic at hand. If you will recall, the topic at hand wasn't the possession of firearms, it was your comment that the Fed should fear the citizens, not the other way around.

I'm not sure you understand, there are only two successful methods of tax collection in history; coercion or gambling, with coercion by far and away the most popular. Even the founding fathers were tax cheats; it was the very definition of their rebellion against the king. When they formed their own government, the practical among them knew they were dealing with a young nation full of tax cheats.

The Pennsylvania moonshiners (who fled to Kentucky and Tennessee after having their asses handed to them, and founded some alcoholic dynasties) pretty much thumbed their noses at the Fed. "We fear you not." GW put the fear in them pretty good. And those cowardly bastards ran like the drunken hillbillies they were; guns and all.

And its been the same ever since; f*#k with the fed in some fundamental way and you will lose. The civil war merely reaffirmed what GW had already established; The Federal Government of the United States is the LAW OF THE LAND. And when it comes to taxes, you'd do well to fear.

A federal government afraid to collect taxes is no government at all. No government equals anarchy and chaos. The state governments would fare no better in such a situation, Pennsylvania moonshiners weren't paying PENN taxes either.

DMT
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 10, 2015 - 07:29am PT
Excellent points, DMT.

The Constitution was framed with one primary goal: to create a federal government with the power to tax.

madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 10, 2015 - 09:59am PT
HighDesert, there is no doubt that "white males" have done terrible things. But don't single us out for special condemnation. It's the HUMAN condition to do terrible things.

It's not like white males were running around Africa with big butterfly nets capturing black people to be slaves. The African slaves were sold to Europeans by other Africans. Inter-tribal warfare has fueled the slave trade on every continent down through human history, and the vast majority of human societies in history have had a slave economy.

Even the white's treatment of the American Indians, atrocious as it was, was only doing to them on a grander scale what they had been doing to themselves forever before the Europeans arrived. Please see the attached picture I snapped from a museum in Nebraska. This is but one acknowledgement of the truth. Just as on the African continent, on the American continent inter-tribal warfare was furious and produced both death and enslavement.

We whipped them!
We whipped them!
Credit: madbolter1

I'm NOT saying that all these abuses are acceptable. But I AM tired of having "white males" singled out for special condemnation. "We" have done nothing that hasn't been done throughout history as just part of the evil that lives in HUMANS.

Now, it is of note that the constitution does not explicitly disallow every form of human evil. It is not a document designed to say, "You can't do this. You can't do that. Oh, and you also can't do this other thing." Instead, the constitution was written to frame the broad parameters of federal/state/individual relations, with a special eye cast to the protection of certain oft-abused, inalienable, negative rights. Having established protection of those, the constitution is silent about a wide range of other rights (and responsibilities).

The fact that the constitution does not, for example, explicitly define what a "human being" is (such as regarding the abortion issue) is actually a strength of it. It leaves a wide range of "cultural" and philosophical debates entirely alone. Thus, IF it can be established that a fetus is a human being, it will be taken to enjoy the same human rights as other human beings. If not, then, well, you have the present state of affairs.

Similarly, the slaves in this country (sadly and amazingly) were not taken to have human rights as human beings. The constitution was readable in terms of them having such rights, just as it is readable in terms of fetuses having such rights, and those rights are not disallowed by the constitution (the 3/5 issue was not about rights but about census). It is not a shortcoming of the constitution that, for example, fetuses are not defined as human beings; it is a strength.

So, I guess I'm not clear about what you think should be changed or acknowledged. And I deny the special condemnation of "white males" that has become fashionable. We've been evil! So has EVERY sort of human being down through history!

And the fact that the constitution recognizes certain rights does not mean that human beings do not have others that are not mentioned. What you can't take from how the constitution handles rights is the idea that rights are this "grand variable" that the constitution doesn't even try to handle correctly. Certain rights are explicitly protected, and others are presumed. Many are not mentioned at all.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 10, 2015 - 10:09am PT
And its been the same ever since; f*#k with the fed in some fundamental way and you will lose. The civil war merely reaffirmed what GW had already established; The Federal Government of the United States is the LAW OF THE LAND. And when it comes to taxes, you'd do well to fear.

I agree that a primary goal of the federalists was to establish a federal government that could tax. That is indeed one of its protected and legitimate powers. And the government should not fear its people when exercising its legitimate powers.

However, it is a HUGE step to get from there to the idea that the federal government should be all-powerful, with a standing military to enforce its every whim, having the people cowed and perpetually submitted to its exercise of power.

The way Washington handled the moonshiners is THE model of the feds exercising their power BY appealing to the states for the resources and ability to enforce a legitimate claim. The reason why this model is THE model is that this model requires the STATES to agree with the feds on a case by case basis that a particular enforcement action IS enforcement of a legitimate federal power!

That is why there is no corollary between your George Washington example and the current standing military, and it is not an example of the way that the feds currently throw their weight around on countless, countless issues over which they have NO legitimate power.

The fact that they CAN does not mean that they have the RIGHT to! And the fact that Americans ARE cowed by the feds and forcibly submitted to its MIGHT is a fundamental problem that the federalists really did try to obviate when writing the constitution.
donini

Trad climber
Ouray, Colorado
Apr 10, 2015 - 10:12am PT
The 10,000th post on this thread will have the same people arguing the same points. If it makes everyone feel good, by all means....carry on!
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 10, 2015 - 10:19am PT
madbolter posted
So, I guess I'm not clear about what you think should be changed or acknowledged. And I deny the special condemnation of "white males" that has become fashionable. We've been evil! So has EVERY sort of human being down through history!

A long winded obfuscation excusing slavery and genocide? I'm shocked!

madbolter continued
The fact that the constitution does not, for example, explicitly define what a "human being" is (such as regarding the abortion issue) is actually a strength of it. It leaves a wide range of "cultural" and philosophical debates entirely alone. .

Again, something you see as a strength only because you are part of the cultural majority and do not suffer the ill effects of its exclusion. Your reduction of the definition of "human" to a "cultural debate" is a serious moral failing and your dismissal of the condemnation of white males (the historic and continued power bloc in this country) as "fashionable" is embarrassing.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 10, 2015 - 10:55am PT
A long winded obfuscation excusing slavery and genocide? I'm shocked!

The fact that you can read what I wrote as "excusing slavery and genocide" proves to me that you are not even trying to be intellectually honest, and I'll have nothing more to do with you.
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 10, 2015 - 10:56am PT
Again, something you see as a strength only because you are part of the cultural majority and do not suffer the ill effects of its exclusion.

Saying someone's argument is wrong because of their gender and/or race is basically a bigoted ad hominem.

That's a freezing offense!
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 10, 2015 - 11:04am PT
We'll just have to disagree about the all-powerful aspect of the Fed, the Civil War settled the matter with resounding finality, imo. No state has been successful in usurping that power, since, so far as I know.

Cheers
DMT
HighDesertDJ

Trad climber
Apr 10, 2015 - 11:06am PT
madbolter
The fact that you can read what I wrote as "excusing slavery and genocide" proves to me that you are not even trying to be intellectually honest, and I'll have nothing more to do with you.

Your inability to examine your own biases undermines any illusion of "intellectual honesty" on your part, my friend. You literally posted a "so white guys committed acts of genocide, so did a lot of other people!" defense in an attempt to derail a conversation pointing out that the lack of specificity in the Constitution actually allowed for many grievous acts to be legally committed which completely destroys your Pollyanna view of Constitutional purity.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 10, 2015 - 11:08am PT
We'll just have to disagree about the all-powerful aspect of the Fed, the Civil War settled the matter with resounding finality, imo. No state has been successful in usurping that power, since, so far as I know.

I think we're in agreement about what IS the state of affairs. Perhaps we're not in agreement about how the state of affairs was designed to be and should be.

That the civil war "settled it" applies only to the fact that the experiment in federalism failed. As the anti-federalists had feared, the federal government DID (and quite quickly) usurp all power unto itself.
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 10, 2015 - 11:19am PT
the lack of specificity in the Constitution actually allowed for many grievous acts to be legally committed which completely destroys your Pollyanna view of Constitutional purity.

I have never suggested that the constitution is "pure"! I have stated that the principles that grounded its writing were correct.

And your idea of "bias" is quite ridiculous! The fact that I'm a "white male" doesn't mean that I am incapable of having an educated and sweeping perspective about human rights and human interactions in general. You assert that my "white maleness" by definition means that I cannot "see" clearly, and that is patently ridiculous.

HUMANS have been treating each other like crap forever! White males have been no worse in this regard than any other race/culture/creed! So when YOU single out "white males" for special condemnation, you reveal your OWN PC bias that does not take the sweep of human history into account.

And WHAT would you have the constitution say? Would you have it meticulously define every possible relation, entity, and activity?

What it DID was more brilliant: It laid out fundamental principles and the basis of rights, and then it provided mechanisms by which PEOPLE could work out cultural issues and additional definitions going forward.

There are people that think the constitution MUST be amended to include fetuses as human beings with the full slate of human rights. There are other people that thing the constitution has NO business doing any such thing! WHICH perspective "should" the constitution have enshrined?

It's obvious to you, now, that the constitution should have taken on the slavery issue at the outset. Easy to say NOW. But it was hard enough to GET a constitution of ANY form in that day. The constitution took NO position on slavery, just as it attempted NO definition of "human being." Thus, the constitution did not "allow" slavery any more than it now "allows" abortion. It was AGNOSTIC on the subject, allowing the PEOPLE to work out the practical implications of the PRINCIPLES it enshrined. The fact that PEOPLE are screwed up, evil, and utterly self-serving cannot be fixed by ANY constitution!

"Purity"? What a laugh! The constitution is FAR from "pure" or "perfect"! But the PRINCIPLES it established were correct (as far as they went), and the surround documents written by the founders provide the most thorough (and largely correct) slate of political philosophizing every produced by human beings.
Toker Villain

Big Wall climber
Toquerville, Utah
Apr 10, 2015 - 11:37am PT
Jim, your dogma is not allowed in my karma.


When it comes to accuracy for decades I have been a .45acp kind of guy, but between 9 being the new 22 and the sweetness of the trigger, my new CZ 75T is certainly on the rise, Ron.
Plus the 20 round clip, bevelled mag well, thin checkered grips make it super fun to practice rapid engagement.
Dingus Milktoast

Gym climber
Maestro, Ecosystem Ministry, Fatcrackistan
Apr 10, 2015 - 12:30pm PT
I think we're in agreement about what IS the state of affairs. Perhaps we're not in agreement about how the state of affairs was designed to be and should be.

That the civil war "settled it" applies only to the fact that the experiment in federalism failed. As the anti-federalists had feared, the federal government DID (and quite quickly) usurp all power unto itself.

OK, fair and reasonable enough.

Cheers
DMT
madbolter1

Big Wall climber
Denver, CO
Apr 10, 2015 - 01:19pm PT
Have a good weekend. I hope your back is much better!
Dave Kos

Social climber
Temecula
Apr 10, 2015 - 02:03pm PT
HUMANS have been treating each other like crap forever! White males have been no worse in this regard than any other race/culture/creed!


Actually, we're better at it!
Stewart

Trad climber
Courtenay, B.C.
Apr 10, 2015 - 02:19pm PT
I wish that some day you guys who seem to think that drooling over gun porn is somehow an admirable character trait would actually sit down for a few moments, clear your brains, and consider two facts:

1) The U.S. is the only "civilized nation" on planet earth that doesn't have a taxpayer funded universal health care system for all citizens.

2) The U.S. has the highest murder rate in the civilized world, most of which are committed by firearms.

There are many things to admire about the U.S., but this infantile obsession with high power weaponry isn't one of them, especially Ron Anderson's most recent love affair with ammunition that is specifically designed to kill people - a design feature that will be happily embraced by every nutbar who wants to kill a cop, or any other law abiding citizen for that matter.

If you've got to play with guns, there are plenty of target ranges out there and lots of game to hunt. You most definitely don't need assault weapons to do this stuff, regardless of what you believe to be your "rights".
Messages 5521 - 5540 of total 5646 in this topic << First  |  < Previous  |  Show All  |  Next >  |  Last >>
Return to Forum List
 
Our Guidebooks
Check 'em out!
SuperTopo Guidebooks


Try a free sample topo!

 
SuperTopo on the Web

Review Categories
Recent Trip Report and Articles
Recent Route Beta
Recent Gear Reviews