1 of 3
1
Guns vs God Fallacies
Posted: 13 June 2013 06:43 PM   [ Ignore ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

1)
Guns don’t kill people; People kill people.
  Therefore, the medium, guns, have irrelevant effect on the outcome of one’s intent and doesn’t determine it’s effectiveness to meet that goal. But that makes them arbitrary and not essential for any circumstance. So, any militia, being a group of people, don’t require guns to kill people since they are bound and determined to meet that goal regardless and will succeed without them. Certainly, a hired militia is more determined to get their job done than a single individual who resolves to avenge others with the same end. In fact, not only does a militia have number power, they also have the accepted legitimacy of its country’s people to act. On the other hand, a lone criminal who chooses to act in such a way lacks the psychological justification of social acceptability to encourage their behavior that a militia has.

Compare:

Money doesn’t buy things; People buy things.
  Therefore, the medium, money, is irrelevant to effect the result of assuring one gets what they want nor their effectiveness to meet the goal of a purchase. But that makes money arbitrary and not essential for any purchase. So any group of people, like a government or a corporation, for instance, don’t require the medium of money to acquire anything they need. Certainly, a government or corporation is more determined to get what they acquire and will succeed without it. In fact, not only do governments and corporations have quantitative power, they also have the accepted legitimacy of its members to act. On the other hand, a lone criminal who chooses to acquire what they want lack the social and psychological justification of acceptability to encourage them to simply take what they want (steal).

2) (a)
Constitutional Laws & Amendments are laws that apply perpetually from their original intents and must not be altered because their application is universally effective for all times and places.

Compare:

The Bible’s Commandments are laws that apply perpetually from their original intents and must not be altered because their application is universally effective for all times and places.

2) (b)
Constitutional Laws & Amendments are laws that may be re-interpreted to apply to the present cultural time and place even if the original meaning is changed. Then what are in those particular words and symbols used to convey the old meaning that make them absolute and superior if you can simply change its meaning? For example, Adolf Hitler refers to a particular historical character most of us despise today. But in a future time, it may come to be true that we find National Socialism is best understood in people’s minds as symbolizing a more intolerable character and use the term “Adolf Hitler” to map that association to another person. So in more future times, it may be irrelevant to map the name, “Adolf Hitler” to a sincere past historical truth.
  This is certainly how words naturally evolve. In regards to the term regardless, meaning, without regards, irregardless should mean without regardless-ness which in turn should revert to meaning in regards. But it is competing to overtake its logical implication. So in some future where “regardless” then means with specific regards to as “irregardless” would then without regards, one in the future who reads someone writing this word from a past document is just to interpret it in their new context even though it can totally not match its original author’s use.

Compare:

The Bible’s Commandments are laws that may be re-interpreted to apply to the present cultural time and place even if the original meaning is corrupted or changed. Then what are in those particular words and symbols used to convey the old meaning that make them absolute and superior if you can simply change its meaning? For example, Jesus Christ was originally a title, meaning something akin to “I am the God” (Je Zeus) who is “The King of Man” (Christos = the/an annointed one, a person officially announced King or Ceasar). Now, it became the name of this originally unspecified individual.
    This is certainly how religion has evolved. In the interpretation of the Salvation of Christ, originally, this salvation referred to the fact that since he was supposedly understood to be the Messiah that the Jewish Testament prophesied to appear at the end of all time and re-animate all the select dead to rebirth for eternal life in a renewed paradise on Earth, but the end of all time doesn’t seem to transpire, the death of Jesus was to represent that he chose to sacrifice his eternal Earthly presence to create an alter-reality where Paradise does still exist (heaven) for those chosen people. The ‘saving’ was necessary as a function to withdraw God’s initial eternal punishment of permanent death that he cursed mankind for the original sin—choosing to know wisdom for themselves by the act of eating the apple from the Tree of Wisdom.
  No doubt, even First Sin may have been the ‘secular’ explanation for why humans alone have reasoning over other animals, to tame and domesticate plants and animals and must yet struggle to survive with the inevitable end in dying for what seems at odds for their apparent supremacy.
  But this has now evolved into something completely different since the Reformation. Since the protestant movement was a protest against the fact that a human clergy was the go-between and authority on or to God, set off finally when the Pope decided to sell indulgences to assure anyone’s passage to heaven if they can afford it, the post interpretation of Salvation evolved into the concept that only through Jesus (as opposed to a clergy or human authority) could anyone gain the privilege of being chosen to go to heaven upon death. Today this has absurdly been reduced to thinking that simply choosing to believe, even without good works, that Jesus will save you a place in eternity and that his sacrifice was not to resolve Original Sin but everyone’s present sins.

3)
Where there’s a will, there’s a way; Where there’s a way, there’s the will (wish fulfilled).
  So if you presently hate someone so much that you imagine, even to deep fantasy, that you’d desire to kill them, there is always a way and therefore, you will always act and succeed at killing them. Transitively, this means that your thoughts always assure the reality. The fans of the NRA are certain to be superior intellects at the power of such positive thinking considering they love to collect guns because they are assured that this easily conquered world knows that everything will always turn out for the best; Even vengeful intolerant governments could never exist because that just isn’t what they will it. They assure us that they really believe this because they can assure us that even the majority, if not all, criminals have this innate drive and superiority to assure that they always succeed. Okay, so the guy couldn’t initially get a job at McDonald’s because he just didn’t suit their expected qualifications. But his magnificent ability to match his superior will with results and positive thinking assures us that he’ll qualify when he comes in with his wiser idea to bring in a gun next time as a persuasive tool of self-determination. But when he comes in, another thought comes to him…why don’t I just skip to the next step and just ask for an advance up front? Wisdom by such ‘criminals’ even supersedes the will of those self-made millionaires who are stupid enough to continue showing up for work!
  So, like the NRA gun supporters, their ability to mostly or always succeed at their strongest desire, even if that means killing someone, a criminal always gets what they want. I’m sure no criminal is stupid enough to ever get caught and end up in jail. As well, gun supporters really don’t fear that a reckless nor intolerant government could ever overpower them because they believe that if anyone is always certain to determine their outcome like a criminal determined to kill with or without a gun, they are confident that they can kill a bad government with or without a gun themselves!

Compare:

Where there’s a bill to pay, everyone always pays their bill.

4)
Someone like a cool looking dude wielding a gun or fifty is more authoritative and trustworthy and less threatening than any old lady in a wheelchair without one who may merely hold some lousy criminal psychology degree but totes a bag with knitting needles beside her. After all, even if she doesn’t use the needles to slowly stab you to death, she has such powers to call up her friend, the Senator with her sweet words and have the authorities take down your whole fucking family if you piss her off!!

Compare:

If you want to learn to be a good citizen and avoid a life of crime, would it be wiser to consult fifty convicted criminals with their expertise at criminal experience, or one simpleton do-gooder who likes to do dumb charity work and is always so fucking happy?

5)
Hunting is a necessary conventional sport and requires a gun. It’s always good to know that the nature of a true person is demonstrated with such artistry, skill, and courage to go out in the woods with a picnic basket of prepared sandwiches from the spouse and a case of beer, pick a spot in the middle of the preservation that assures the deer population is sufficient enough to supply the sportsmen in season and pick off a calf from a safe distance. Nintendo Wii is child’s play…there’s no kickback when you pull the trigger. And you don’t get that satisfaction of ripping apart a dead corpse and feel that power exuding through your own veins after a fresh kill. At least you can assure yourself that you killed the animal compassionately. Or was it because the adrenaline makes it taste bad on a slow kill?

Compare:

Eating popcorn at the movies is an essential conventional recreation and requires lots of real butter and hopefully, a real date. It’s always good to know that the true nature of a person is demonstrated with such artistry, skill, and courage to ask your best friend’s girl on a date loaded with goodies from the snack bar, and ...oh risky, you snuck in a little whiskey to top off your cokes. You pick a spot at the back of the theater so you can make out while the ushers safely keep an eye out for anyone sneaking in the back door. Watching porn at home alone is child’s play…there’s no kickback when you pull your trigger. And you don’t get that satisfaction of ripping your best friend’s girl away from him feeling the power exuding through your own vein when you get her home to bed. At least you can assure yourself that he’d do the same to you. Or is this just the adrenaline speaking?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 08:08 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 1 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17

Guns are inanimate objects. And yes, people kill people and people buy things. Money is merely an inanimate tool to exchange goods and services. Gun violence is a problem of people, not guns. And if you think the Constitution needs to be changed, there is a process to change it called the amendment process. Otherwise, no you do not “re-interpret” the meaning of it, because then it becomes a free-for-all. A very ironic example of this was Rachel Maddow talking about the Constitution as a “living document” with regards to the Second Amendment, but then when it comes out about the Associated Press being investigated wrongly by the government, and she provides a full-throated defense of the First Amendment as written, as if it was the word of God himself or something.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 13 June 2013 11:15 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 2 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
LogicMan - 13 June 2013 08:08 PM

Gun violence is a problem of people, not guns.

Sure, guns don’t care whether you use them or not. The pen on my desk doesn’t care whether I use it or not, either. Nor does it care how I use it. I can choose to use the pen as a weapon, a tool understood to be used to harm another animal (humans, inclusive). I have a harder time using a gun as something mundane to write with though. Perhaps its unique ability to charge a missile very rapidly could be used to denote something better than pointing at it from distance.

“See that person over there that I’m pointing to? Wait a sec…(bang!)...that person who just dropped so suddenly. Anyhoo,... doesn’t he remind you of Frank?”

Okay, it’s not so good as a pointer. But as a weapon, it seems to suit its function more appropriately. And although a pen can be used as weapon, its function to write presents sufficient reason to keep around as a handy tool. Likewise, a knife’s usual intended purpose is to serve as a dinner or preparation utensil and thus, though it too can be used as a weapon, it has sufficient necessary value as a utensil to justify its continuing use. No one usually under normal circumstances has a defensive mind to regard talking to someone while they are cutting a tomato as a threat. Even if I am around someone who is pretty fucking mad at me, it usually wouldn’t occur to me to be concerned whether they’ve got a potential weapon in that pen sitting on the table in the room.

Now, I’m a pale-skinned red head. And if you aren’t then let me give you an example of some common experiences I’ve run into. My face turns red even due to minor temperature changes. Sometimes, even the slightest of emotional differences in the way I may accent my words is sufficient enough to concern strangers (and close ones too) because they can often misinterpret me, and do, with hostility when it has zero relation to my mind or temperament. So, imagine a scenario where you meet me for the first time as my bus driver as I hand you a transfer slip that I presume that I just had from a previous bus. You look at it and caught your eye on the fact that it didn’t match today’s security marker. You tell it is no good and expect me to pay the full fare.
  I look at it, notice that the time-stamp is correct and give it back questioningly. Now, you, being the wise and experienced bus driver smell that I’m just trying to steal a ride with an old transfer. You won’t even bother wasting your breath being nice because its been a long day and you’ve already run into five others who just tried to do the same scam.
    “Pay up, or get out!”, you say rudely to me.
    Now I’m certain that a mistake is made and suggest to you that you contact the very bus that I just transferred from five minutes ago and you still think that I’m full of it and do not want to waste any more time so demand that I pay up again or get off rather curtly.
    I cuss under my breath because I’m going to end up late for my appointment and am utterly confused at the error that I only presume must be an accident from the other bus driver not updating his transfer pad. You won’t have any of that crap with someone cursing fowl language, reprimand me for appearing to represent what you thought was me being aggressive towards you. I apologize immediately for your interpretation and I’m at a loss momentarily trying to process what to do and having to try to think quick. I check my jacket pocket to see if I perhaps had another transfer in there from another day that I hadn’t thrown out but accidentally switched when I put the other one in my pocket while I waited at the transfer location and discover that indeed I did. I was quickly relieved and instinctively cussed under my breath because of it.
  Without being capable of responding, you grab my shoulders and force me out the door of the bus for my apparently hot-headed look and cussing suggesting to you that I am getting violent.
  Now I am mad for your forceful belittling of me and inappropriate prejudicing me of my sincere attitude.
  “Fuck you!”, I say with forceful indignation, “you can’t treat me like this. Here,” I say, as I show you the proper transfer and you don’t even look at it while standing firm at the entrance to the bus keeping me from getting on. I try to move past you onto the bus anyway and you interpret me as getting physically violent and threatening.
  Now, convenient for you, it could handy that you may legally be permitted to hold a legal firearm and feel that such escalation has justified you to pull out it, point it squarely at my chest and demand me to step back. In your mind, for whatever reason, you are sincerely scared and have had just too much stress throughout the day that it’s built up in your nerves.
  “You fucking cocksucker,” I yell as I am now just as enraged as ever and challenge you to dare use it as I give you the finger.
  You shoot. ... I drop dead.

Now had we met under normal circumstances, we could have been the best of friends. Had you not had a gun, you would have been forced to use your bus radio and call for police assistance and the situation could be ‘fixed’ as the police are not just qualified to handle violent undertakings, they learn how to attempt immediate resolution if it can be done.

The bus driver is trained to drive a bus as a teacher is to teach. A bus driver nor teacher isn’t paid enough to even extend sufficient training to handle all the unique variations that a police officer goes to academy training for. Where is the “LogicMan” wisdom to justify everyone having some innate right to possess and use such a powerful weapon that even the most reasonable people at times can permanently alter ones fate on a misinterpretation?

LogicMan - 13 June 2013 08:08 PM

And if you think the Constitution needs to be changed, there is a process to change it called the amendment process. Otherwise, no you do not “re-interpret” the meaning of it, because then it becomes a free-for-all. A very ironic example of this was Rachel Maddow talking about the Constitution as a “living document” with regards to the Second Amendment, but then when it comes out about the Associated Press being investigated wrongly by the government, and she provides a full-throated defense of the First Amendment as written, as if it was the word of God himself or something.

I suggested both the possibility of accepting the original context and imposing a modern interpretation to it as separate examples, both of which fall short of inevitable problems. My suggestion is to cancel it and then restructure it in modern language for modern purposes. In fact, I would keep it out of the Constitution and place the new law in common or civil law. It’s function is moot regardless of how it can be interpreted at present because even the assumed original intention of it cannot ever possibly be realized. A government with a federal Military cannot be defeated by a sub-militia group of its population without the militia from acting and succeeding in ways that are even more totalitarian, cruel, and more threatening than its own government’s contemporary Regular Military at any time regardless of separate political differences. First of all, if the democratic ideal is the supreme one, then it would require that a vast majority of its members support the Militia over the government. But then the confidence in such a possible cruel government had to either break from its democratic process or must have been conquered from outside. Like you admit yourself, guns don’t people, people kill people and thus even if a relatively small minority government takes force from within or without, it would require a minimal amount of people with a power to choose to use its weapons against the population at large.
  Perhaps you fear a group like Al Qaeda to infiltrate the minds of government and its Military. The more likely minority to take over without representation would have to be a group that values the nature of being privileged to amass weapons by law and then actually do so claiming their collections are as insignificant as collecting stamps, using them for fun and innocent recreations like hunting or target shooting and for keeping down those pesky rodent populations that so evasively and cleverly harm the real effective productivity of their gargantuan corporate farms. Under the noses of such stupid majority who allow these people to continue to do so while even more stupidly refusing to do the same thing themselves, when the time is right, with the proper politicians of their enormously powerful and persuasive lobbies set in place, then….
oops…what happened?

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 10:24 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 3 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 13 June 2013 11:15 PM

[
I suggested both the possibility of accepting the original context and imposing a modern interpretation to it as separate examples, both of which fall short of inevitable problems. My suggestion is to cancel it and then restructure it in modern language for modern purposes. In fact, I would keep it out of the Constitution and place the new law in common or civil law.

The problem is how to give a “modern” interpretation. Every era since industrialization thinks it is the “modern” era, only then to look back twenty or thirty years into the future at how quirky some things were back then. The Supreme Court defended forcibly sterilizing women in the name of eugenics because that was the “modern” interpretation of the time. Socialism was considered the “modern” way to organize an economic system as well at the time.

Also, if you try to structure the Constitution to be up-to-date, you’ll find it will be outdated within ten years. There have been hundreds of constitutions written throughout the world. Most are hundreds or even thousands of pages long, because they try to cover every little thing. As a result, the governments they create usually do not last that long. Our constitution, by contrast, is timeless, because the Founders made it a very short, brief document (only about twelve pages) that covers all of the really big stuff, while leaving the smaller things to the local, state, and federal governments. If one of those governments passes a law that someone argues is not in line with the Constitution, it’s then the job of the Court (s) to determine whether the law is in line with the often silent Constitution.

It is not their job to engage in activism however. If we find that something is wrong with the Constitution, or outdated, or that the Founders just flat-out forgot something, the process to change it is through formal amendment. That keeps it flexible and up-to-date with the times.

It’s function is moot regardless of how it can be interpreted at present because even the assumed original intention of it cannot ever possibly be realized. A government with a federal Military cannot be defeated by a sub-militia group of its population without the militia from acting and succeeding in ways that are even more totalitarian, cruel, and more threatening than its own government’s contemporary Regular Military at any time regardless of separate political differences. First of all, if the democratic ideal is the supreme one, then it would require that a vast majority of its members support the Militia over the government. But then the confidence in such a possible cruel government had to either break from its democratic process or must have been conquered from outside. Like you admit yourself, guns don’t people, people kill people and thus even if a relatively small minority government takes force from within or without, it would require a minimal amount of people with a power to choose to use its weapons against the population at large.

If the militia had decent leaders, I think it could fight a regular military in a more humane manner. Things like torture and so forth could be forbidden. The resistance in Egypt took great care to not be violent, and the Mubarak regime tried to taunt it into being violent to justify using more force on it. If such a peaceful resistance can be disciplined, then I think an armed resistance could also be fairly disciplined in terms of how to fight.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 11:04 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 4 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

You missed the last sentence:

Scott Mayers - 13 June 2013 11:15 PM

[
I suggested both the possibility of accepting the original context and imposing a modern interpretation to it as separate examples, both of which fall short of inevitable problems. My suggestion is to cancel it and then restructure it in modern language for modern purposes. In fact, I would keep it out of the Constitution and place the new law in common or civil law.

Taking it completely out of the Constitution (a permanent document) and reconstructing a new one, if necessary, that applies to today in Common or Civil laws makes it easier to change according to different times. Also, what is wrong with attempting to amend the Constitution? Did the American’s of 17-1800s have the inerrant superior wisdom to know what all of posterity should require?

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 10:24 AM

It’s function is moot regardless of how it can be interpreted at present because even the assumed original intention of it cannot ever possibly be realized. A government with a federal Military cannot be defeated by a sub-militia group of its population without the militia from acting and succeeding in ways that are even more totalitarian, cruel, and more threatening than its own government’s contemporary Regular Military at any time regardless of separate political differences. First of all, if the democratic ideal is the supreme one, then it would require that a vast majority of its members support the Militia over the government. But then the confidence in such a possible cruel government had to either break from its democratic process or must have been conquered from outside. Like you admit yourself, guns don’t people, people kill people and thus even if a relatively small minority government takes force from within or without, it would require a minimal amount of people with a power to choose to use its weapons against the population at large.

If the militia had decent leaders, I think it could fight a regular military in a more humane manner. Things like torture and so forth could be forbidden. The resistance in Egypt took great care to not be violent, and the Mubarak regime tried to taunt it into being violent to justify using more force on it. If such a peaceful resistance can be disciplined, then I think an armed resistance could also be fairly disciplined in terms of how to fight.

No doubt. But the question still remains: How do you presume that just any arbitrary small group of dissidents who form a militia that even has the power to take over the federal government isn’t more of the potential threat than the government that is elected by the whole? Just as you may justify fearing a big powerful government from being or becoming cruel totalitarians, how do you figure any smaller subgroup of society has immunity to this? Note that Hitler got into power by a plurality vote that was less than the majority of voters. Note too that back then, each party had their own private militias. This was a major fact that enabled Hitler to take over.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 04:46 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 5 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 11:04 AM

You missed the last sentence:

Scott Mayers - 13 June 2013 11:15 PM

[
I suggested both the possibility of accepting the original context and imposing a modern interpretation to it as separate examples, both of which fall short of inevitable problems. My suggestion is to cancel it and then restructure it in modern language for modern purposes. In fact, I would keep it out of the Constitution and place the new law in common or civil law.

Taking it completely out of the Constitution (a permanent document) and reconstructing a new one, if necessary, that applies to today in Common or Civil laws makes it easier to change according to different times. Also, what is wrong with attempting to amend the Constitution? Did the American’s of 17-1800s have the inerrant superior wisdom to know what all of posterity should require?

How does it make it easier to change according to different times? Such documents have to cover the timeless things. Trying to create a new, “up-to-date” document isn’t going to work because it will end up being outdated very quickly. And I never said there is anything wrong with trying to amend the Constitution. I wrote that if something is wrong with the Constitution, or outdated, or the Founders flat-out forgot something, then the process to change it is via the amendment process. What I said is bad is when justices engage in judicial activism, where they basically decide to ignore those parts of the Constitution that they don’t like.

No doubt. But the question still remains: How do you presume that just any arbitrary small group of dissidents who form a militia that even has the power to take over the federal government isn’t more of the potential threat than the government that is elected by the whole? Just as you may justify fearing a big powerful government from being or becoming cruel totalitarians, how do you figure any smaller subgroup of society has immunity to this? Note that Hitler got into power by a plurality vote that was less than the majority of voters. Note too that back then, each party had their own private militias. This was a major fact that enabled Hitler to take over.

Well a small group of dissidents that formed a resistance to fight the government that we the people have elected in would constitute an insurrection, which is illegal and which the Constitution gives the Congress the power to use the militia (armed general population) to fight. The militia (armed populace) serves as a counter-weight to the government in the event that the government was to become tyrannical, as in say a dictator taking over and the democratic process being ended.

Historically, one way this has been done is where a general decides to try and declare himself king or ruler or dictator and uses the military to close off the legislature. This is one reason why the Founders did not trust standing armies. It to this day is a problem in various countries, but in the United States, we have a military where it is drilled into their heads that they defer to civilian authority.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 14 June 2013 10:40 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 6 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

How does it make it easier to change according to different times?

I think that maybe you aren’t aware that “Common” or “Civil” law has nothing to do with the Constitution. When laws are made in these forums, they can change all the time. The function of politicians are to create or change laws; Do you assume that the only laws that exist are Constitutional, fixed ones?

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

Such documents have to cover the timeless things. Trying to create a new, “up-to-date” document isn’t going to work because it will end up being outdated very quickly.

Not if you are taking out a particular Constitutional law. How does a law that isn’t there anymore have an effect in changing times?

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

What I said is bad is when justices engage in judicial activism, where they basically decide to ignore those parts of the Constitution that they don’t like.

Well, that’s the because of the fact that a law like the gun ammendment is ambiguous to today’s use. Obviously if half the population thinks it means one thing while the other thinks it means something else, then how is any judge supposed to act? If a judge agreed with you, you wouldn’t complain. When they don’t, you do. Half the population will be happy while the other is disappointed at all times if the problem is equally divided. And…if the law is not to be interpreted by a judge, what use is he since it would imply that everyone agrees with the same exact thing. There would be no ambiguity and no need for a court to decide if someone breaks that law.

No doubt. But the question still remains: How do you presume that just any arbitrary small group of dissidents who form a militia that even has the power to take over the federal government isn’t more of the potential threat than the government that is elected by the whole? Just as you may justify fearing a big powerful government from being or becoming cruel totalitarians, how do you figure any smaller subgroup of society has immunity to this? Note that Hitler got into power by a plurality vote that was less than the majority of voters. Note too that back then, each party had their own private militias. This was a major fact that enabled Hitler to take over.

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

Well a small group of dissidents that formed a resistance to fight the government that we the people have elected in would constitute an insurrection, which is illegal and which the Constitution gives the Congress the power to use the militia (armed general population) to fight.

Who decides if and when a government is being tyrannical? Tyranny is a relative concept. I thought that George Bush was absolutely tyrannical when he declared to the world and his own people, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” and acted on it by sanctioning (punishing through economics) any country, like Canada, for not formally agreeing with him. It was also tyrannical, not to mention very deceptive, to attack Iraq, on clearly false premises and associate Saddam Hussein with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. His biggest crime was the supposed attack on Iran with chemical weapons. Though this was probable, it had no connection to any other organization, especially of a religious type, because he was an atheist or secular in nature. In fact, the determination to put him to death was certainly based on religious hatred against a regime that secularized them more than anything.
  Certainly my point isn’t to defend a person such as Hussein. It should be clear, however, that you cannot justify a presumption that any insurrection must be from a group of individuals who are always the good guys. And like I clearly argued, we have more to fear any organization that fear that their government may become tyrannical because it is they who find it most important to stash and collect weapons, not the ones who aren’t. You haven’t addressed this and appear to be evading this fact.

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

Historically, one way this has been done is where a general decides to try and declare himself king or ruler or dictator and uses the military to close off the legislature.

And what about those people or countries that support such dictatorships that without would never have occurred in the first place? Also, what when it happens to be the fact that a government is supposedly illegitimately tyrannical and it’s Military leaders take over as if they were a militia of the people? You are selectively ignoring all the possibilities for your own favor.

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

This is one reason why the Founders did not trust standing armies. It to this day is a problem in various countries, but in the United States, we have a military where it is drilled into their heads that they defer to civilian authority.

It’s funny though how even though the founders feared this due to their reality of the English standing army of their day, that in many of Britian’s colonies, like Canada, never required an army nor a militia to separate and become independent from them. So their fear doesn’t apply to all times or places.

With respect to the statement that the U.S. standing Military is drilled into deferring to civilian authority, then you should never have a fear of such a Military from turning against its people. So what’s the problem. You just proved that no individual or group external to the Military has even any concern to amass weapons.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 11:40 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 7 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 10:40 PM

I think that maybe you aren’t aware that “Common” or “Civil” law has nothing to do with the Constitution. When laws are made in these forums, they can change all the time. The function of politicians are to create or change laws; Do you assume that the only laws that exist are Constitutional, fixed ones?

All laws created have to be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution. 

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

Not if you are taking out a particular Constitutional law. How does a law that isn’t there anymore have an effect in changing times?

To “update” the Constitution, you are going to have to add more to it than remove from it. 

LogicMan - 14 June 2013 04:46 PM

Well, that’s the because of the fact that a law like the gun ammendment is ambiguous to today’s use. Obviously if half the population thinks it means one thing while the other thinks it means something else, then how is any judge supposed to act? If a judge agreed with you, you wouldn’t complain. When they don’t, you do. Half the population will be happy while the other is disappointed at all times if the problem is equally divided. And…if the law is not to be interpreted by a judge, what use is he since it would imply that everyone agrees with the same exact thing. There would be no ambiguity and no need for a court to decide if someone breaks that law.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous, it is actually pretty clear, it just requires a matter of understanding the language of it. The SCOTUS was 9-0 on the issue of whether the Second Amendment was written to protect an individual right for example. The 5-4 split was over whether the D.C. gun ban should be struck down or not.

Who decides if and when a government is being tyrannical? Tyranny is a relative concept. I thought that George Bush was absolutely tyrannical when he declared to the world and his own people, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” and acted on it by sanctioning (punishing through economics) any country, like Canada, for not formally agreeing with him. It was also tyrannical, not to mention very deceptive, to attack Iraq, on clearly false premises and associate Saddam Hussein with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. His biggest crime was the supposed attack on Iran with chemical weapons. Though this was probable, it had no connection to any other organization, especially of a religious type, because he was an atheist or secular in nature. In fact, the determination to put him to death was certainly based on religious hatred against a regime that secularized them more than anything.
  Certainly my point isn’t to defend a person such as Hussein. It should be clear, however, that you cannot justify a presumption that any insurrection must be from a group of individuals who are always the good guys. And like I clearly argued, we have more to fear any organization that fear that their government may become tyrannical because it is they who find it most important to stash and collect weapons, not the ones who aren’t. You haven’t addressed this and appear to be evading this fact.

I agree that any group forming an insurrection is not always good. I do not agree that such groups always must be feared more than the government. That depends on the group and the government. Bush did not act tyrannically, as he went through the Congress. Top members of Congress do not get their intelligence from the White House. No such person is going to vote in favor of invading a country because of what the White House is saying. So it wasn’t on false premises. And Hussein was a tyrant anyhow.

If Bush had closed off the legislature and started putting into prison his political opponents and critics, that would be tyrannical.

And what about those people or countries that support such dictatorships that without would never have occurred in the first place? Also, what when it happens to be the fact that a government is supposedly illegitimately tyrannical and it’s Military leaders take over as if they were a militia of the people? You are selectively ignoring all the possibilities for your own favor.

That would be a coup. As for if the people support the dictatorship, that is why we are a Constitutional republic, designed to protect the minority from the majority (and the majority from the elite minority).

It’s funny though how even though the founders feared this due to their reality of the English standing army of their day, that in many of Britian’s colonies, like Canada, never required an army nor a militia to separate and become independent from them. So their fear doesn’t apply to all times or places.

With respect to the statement that the U.S. standing Military is drilled into deferring to civilian authority, then you should never have a fear of such a Military from turning against its people. So what’s the problem. You just proved that no individual or group external to the Military has even any concern to amass weapons.

Right now, that fear isn’t a concern. But that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be unforeseen things that can/will happen in the future to change things somehow. We have no way of predicting the future. And the Founders didn’t trust standing armies due to their understanding of history. That is what broke the Roman Republic, generals who kept starting wars and trying to usurp power. That is why Rome converted into a formal empire.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 11:55 AM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 8 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21

Can you fix the credit? You’ve got me quoted as if it is coming from you in two instances above which seems confusing.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 01:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 9 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:40 AM
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 10:40 PM

I think that maybe you aren’t aware that “Common” or “Civil” law has nothing to do with the Constitution. When laws are made in these forums, they can change all the time. The function of politicians are to create or change laws; Do you assume that the only laws that exist are Constitutional, fixed ones?

All laws created have to be in accordance with the U.S. Constitution.

What’s this got to do with anything? This is true of any constitution for most countries on Earth. The question I proposed to you was why you cannot use the regular non-constitutional laws that are changeable in the everyday business of politicians to deal with guns rather than keep it in as a fixed law in the Constitution?

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:40 AM
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 10:40 PM

Not if you are taking out a particular Constitutional law. How does a law that isn’t there anymore have an effect in changing times?

To “update” the Constitution, you are going to have to add more to it than remove from it. 

Where are you getting this strange logic from? If it is set in stone that Constitutional laws cannot be detracted from, then there is actually no such thing as an amendment process.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:40 AM
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 10:40 PM

Well, that’s the because of the fact that a law like the gun ammendment is ambiguous to today’s use. Obviously if half the population thinks it means one thing while the other thinks it means something else, then how is any judge supposed to act? If a judge agreed with you, you wouldn’t complain. When they don’t, you do. Half the population will be happy while the other is disappointed at all times if the problem is equally divided. And…if the law is not to be interpreted by a judge, what use is he since it would imply that everyone agrees with the same exact thing. There would be no ambiguity and no need for a court to decide if someone breaks that law.

The Second Amendment is not ambiguous, it is actually pretty clear, it just requires a matter of understanding the language of it. The SCOTUS was 9-0 on the issue of whether the Second Amendment was written to protect an individual right for example. The 5-4 split was over whether the D.C. gun ban should be struck down or not.

If it was not ambiguous to anyone, then its interpretation would never be brought up or questioned by anyone. Yet it continues to be so in nearly every debate. The problem isn’t that it has one unique correct interpretation from its originators. The problem is to the practical reality that people disagree to its functional meaning in today’s context and have no way to call the original writers to the stand to see how they would fix this discrepancy considering today’s society.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:40 AM
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 10:40 PM

Who decides if and when a government is being tyrannical? Tyranny is a relative concept. I thought that George Bush was absolutely tyrannical when he declared to the world and his own people, “Either you are with us, or you are with the terrorists,” and acted on it by sanctioning (punishing through economics) any country, like Canada, for not formally agreeing with him. It was also tyrannical, not to mention very deceptive, to attack Iraq, on clearly false premises and associate Saddam Hussein with the Taliban or Al Qaeda. His biggest crime was the supposed attack on Iran with chemical weapons. Though this was probable, it had no connection to any other organization, especially of a religious type, because he was an atheist or secular in nature. In fact, the determination to put him to death was certainly based on religious hatred against a regime that secularized them more than anything.
  Certainly my point isn’t to defend a person such as Hussein. It should be clear, however, that you cannot justify a presumption that any insurrection must be from a group of individuals who are always the good guys. And like I clearly argued, we have more to fear any organization that fear that their government may become tyrannical because it is they who find it most important to stash and collect weapons, not the ones who aren’t. You haven’t addressed this and appear to be evading this fact.

I agree that any group forming an insurrection is not always good. I do not agree that such groups always must be feared more than the government. That depends on the group and the government.

You agree that at least sometimes groups of insurrection can be evil as well as good. So how is anyone supposed to determine this? The insurrectors are certain to always maintain that they are the good guys. Reality isn’t like Batman where the villains purposely dress to look evil.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:40 AM

Bush did not act tyrannically, as he went through the Congress. Top members of Congress do not get their intelligence from the White House. No such person is going to vote in favor of invading a country because of what the White House is saying. So it wasn’t on false premises. And Hussein was a tyrant anyhow.

If Bush had closed off the legislature and started putting into prison his political opponents and critics, that would be tyrannical.

It’s a mere technicality that Bush represents the head of a group’s decision-making process. The fact is, his group, represented by him (that’s why you have a Republic and not a Monarchy—the President represents an elected politician and the Head of Government). The excuse for invasion was pushed by the President & company in advance of 9/11 and the relevance of Sadam had zero relations to that event for which they sincerely knew. They purposely were deceptive and actually pretty bad at it too. It was transparent that they were wanting to find any hint of WMDs for an excuse to invade. And when they couldn’t find any, it was all too obvious that they weren’t concerned about truth when a supposedly lone individual claimed to have witnessed them for himself and all of a sudden, all the expertise of such a highly intelligent agency like the C.I.A. and government did not care to check his credibility. Duh!! And claiming afterthefact that, “oh…well, Saddam was a bad guy anyways” is not even grounds in your own courts to justify conviction. I could spread a rumor of how bad someone is without actual evidence, and if he or she turns out to be charged for something else for which a court acts to convict but then discovers errors in the evidence, doesn’t mean that my original rumor should replace the justification for keeping this person locked up. They didn’t get a trial on the rumor.
  And to your last comment, Bush did punish other people through sanctions to countries that wouldn’t support him and favored those that did. Does it not make you wonder why all of a sudden after he threatened the world with, “you are either for us or against us,” that Britain’s appearance in the American social and economic arena grew so suddenly. Also, Australia, with a smaller population than Canada, also become predominantly a bigger part of the American mindset with Canada given more public attention to criticism.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:40 AM
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 10:40 PM

And what about those people or countries that support such dictatorships that without would never have occurred in the first place? Also, what when it happens to be the fact that a government is supposedly illegitimately tyrannical and it’s Military leaders take over as if they were a militia of the people? You are selectively ignoring all the possibilities for your own favor.

That would be a coup. As for if the people support the dictatorship, that is why we are a Constitutional republic, designed to protect the minority from the majority (and the majority from the elite minority).

I was pointing out this fact with the understanding that you were aware of the United States’ past involvements in overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries of the world to be replaced by particular dictators that they want (It’s easier for America to deal with one person in control than a whole population represented by democracies.)

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 11:40 AM
Scott Mayers - 14 June 2013 10:40 PM

It’s funny though how even though the founders feared this due to their reality of the English standing army of their day, that in many of Britian’s colonies, like Canada, never required an army nor a militia to separate and become independent from them. So their fear doesn’t apply to all times or places.

With respect to the statement that the U.S. standing Military is drilled into deferring to civilian authority, then you should never have a fear of such a Military from turning against its people. So what’s the problem. You just proved that no individual or group external to the Military has even any concern to amass weapons.

Right now, that fear isn’t a concern. But that doesn’t mean that there couldn’t be unforeseen things that can/will happen in the future to change things somehow. We have no way of predicting the future. And the Founders didn’t trust standing armies due to their understanding of history. That is what broke the Roman Republic, generals who kept starting wars and trying to usurp power. That is why Rome converted into a formal empire.

Well, I can’t picture you discouraging America from imperialising the rest of the world. But you’re only concerned should those in power not favor your particular sub-population for which you would then acceptably call, tyranny.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:02 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 10 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17

Sorry about the misquotations that occurred.

Scott Mayers - 15 June 2013 01:25 PM

What’s this got to do with anything? This is true of any constitution for most countries on Earth. The question I proposed to you was why you cannot use the regular non-constitutional laws that are changeable in the everyday business of politicians to deal with guns rather than keep it in as a fixed law in the Constitution?

Because arms ownership is a fundamental human right, and as such is protected in the Constitution. If removed, local and state governments would be free to infringe on it as they please (not that many still don’t do this to a good degree anyhow). 

Where are you getting this strange logic from? If it is set in stone that Constitutional laws cannot be detracted from, then there is actually no such thing as an amendment process.

You can remove things from the Constitution, but to “update” it, you’re going to have to add a lot more to it than detract from it, is what I am saying. That is why it is best to leave constitutions to just cover the big, timeless things. If you try to cover all “modern” things, then you get bogged down into length and detail, and then you end up with a constitution that gets outdated fairly quickly.

If it was not ambiguous to anyone, then its interpretation would never be brought up or questioned by anyone. Yet it continues to be so in nearly every debate. The problem isn’t that it has one unique correct interpretation from its originators. The problem is to the practical reality that people disagree to its functional meaning in today’s context and have no way to call the original writers to the stand to see how they would fix this discrepancy considering today’s society.

A lot of people bring up its interpretation due to their own lack of knowledge of the scholarship on it. I see journalists do this all the time. Regarding how to apply it in modern times, much of that has to do with a lack of understanding of guns period, IMO.

You agree that at least sometimes groups of insurrection can be evil as well as good. So how is anyone supposed to determine this? The insurrectors are certain to always maintain that they are the good guys. Reality isn’t like Batman where the villains purposely dress to look evil.

It isn’t an exact science, but I’d say most insurrections against the existing government would either have to be very stupid or evil, because there is no reason to try to overthrow a government that you can elect out of office. Now if a particular group is being oppressed and the majority of voters are okay with it, such as when extreme racism was occurring against blacks, that is different, but even then, peaceful civil resistance is always best to try first (and for the blacks population it worked in the end).

It’s a mere technicality that Bush represents the head of a group’s decision-making process. The fact is, his group, represented by him (that’s why you have a Republic and not a Monarchy—the President represents an elected politician and the Head of Government). The excuse for invasion was pushed by the President & company in advance of 9/11 and the relevance of Sadam had zero relations to that event for which they sincerely knew. They purposely were deceptive and actually pretty bad at it too. It was transparent that they were wanting to find any hint of WMDs for an excuse to invade. And when they couldn’t find any, it was all too obvious that they weren’t concerned about truth when a supposedly lone individual claimed to have witnessed them for himself and all of a sudden, all the expertise of such a highly intelligent agency like the C.I.A. and government did not care to check his credibility. Duh!! And claiming afterthefact that, “oh…well, Saddam was a bad guy anyways” is not even grounds in your own courts to justify conviction. I could spread a rumor of how bad someone is without actual evidence, and if he or she turns out to be charged for something else for which a court acts to convict but then discovers errors in the evidence, doesn’t mean that my original rumor should replace the justification for keeping this person locked up. They didn’t get a trial on the rumor.

The point is that all the hoopla from so many other countries about overthrowing Hussein was silly. The man was a brutal tyrant. We know that for a fact. It wasn’t like invading Iraq cost the other countries of the world anything serious (except money for some of them that did business with Hussein). As for WMDs, if the evidence to that really had been so flimsy, the Congress would have exposed it. As it was, numerous politicians going back to the Clinton years (including Clinton himself) had claimed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat.

And to your last comment, Bush did punish other people through sanctions to countries that wouldn’t support him and favored those that did. Does it not make you wonder why all of a sudden after he threatened the world with, “you are either for us or against us,” that Britain’s appearance in the American social and economic arena grew so suddenly. Also, Australia, with a smaller population than Canada, also become predominantly a bigger part of the American mindset with Canada given more public attention to criticism.

Not sure what you are talking about here with regards to Britain growing in the American social and economic arena. Also, what sanctions on countries do you mean? I know President Bush enacted sanctions on Iran. 

I was pointing out this fact with the understanding that you were aware of the United States’ past involvements in overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries of the world to be replaced by particular dictators that they want (It’s easier for America to deal with one person in control than a whole population represented by democracies.)

To the extent that the U.S. did that, it was not because it is “easier” to deal with dictators, it was because the democratically-elected governments were either communist or radical Islamists. Remember, democracy does not mean liberal democracy (democratic system that protects human rights and freedoms).

Well, I can’t picture you discouraging America from imperialising the rest of the world. But you’re only concerned should those in power not favor your particular sub-population for which you would then acceptably call, tyranny.

My particular sub-population? And I have no interest in America trying to “imperialize” the rest of the world.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 15 June 2013 02:59 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 11 ]
Sr. Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  2245
Joined  2012-10-27
Scott Mayers - 13 June 2013 06:43 PM

1)
Guns don’t kill people; People kill people.
  Therefore, the medium, guns, have irrelevant effect on the outcome of one’s intent and doesn’t determine it’s effectiveness to meet that goal. But that makes them arbitrary and not essential for any circumstance. So, any militia, being a group of people, don’t require guns to kill people since they are bound and determined to meet that goal regardless and will succeed without them. Certainly, a hired militia is more determined to get their job done than a single individual who resolves to avenge others with the same end. In fact, not only does a militia have number power, they also have the accepted legitimacy of its country’s people to act. On the other hand, a lone criminal who chooses to act in such a way lacks the psychological justification of social acceptability to encourage their behavior that a militia has.

Compare:

Money doesn’t buy things; People buy things.
  Therefore, the medium, money, is irrelevant to effect the result of assuring one gets what they want nor their effectiveness to meet the goal of a purchase. But that makes money arbitrary and not essential for any purchase. So any group of people, like a government or a corporation, for instance, don’t require the medium of money to acquire anything they need. Certainly, a government or corporation is more determined to get what they acquire and will succeed without it. In fact, not only do governments and corporations have quantitative power, they also have the accepted legitimacy of its members to act. On the other hand, a lone criminal who chooses to acquire what they want lack the social and psychological justification of acceptability to encourage them to simply take what they want (steal).

2) (a)
Constitutional Laws & Amendments are laws that apply perpetually from their original intents and must not be altered because their application is universally effective for all times and places.

Compare:

The Bible’s Commandments are laws that apply perpetually from their original intents and must not be altered because their application is universally effective for all times and places.

2) (b)
Constitutional Laws & Amendments are laws that may be re-interpreted to apply to the present cultural time and place even if the original meaning is changed. Then what are in those particular words and symbols used to convey the old meaning that make them absolute and superior if you can simply change its meaning? For example, Adolf Hitler refers to a particular historical character most of us despise today. But in a future time, it may come to be true that we find National Socialism is best understood in people’s minds as symbolizing a more intolerable character and use the term “Adolf Hitler” to map that association to another person. So in more future times, it may be irrelevant to map the name, “Adolf Hitler” to a sincere past historical truth.
  This is certainly how words naturally evolve. In regards to the term regardless, meaning, without regards, irregardless should mean without regardless-ness which in turn should revert to meaning in regards. But it is competing to overtake its logical implication. So in some future where “regardless” then means with specific regards to as “irregardless” would then without regards, one in the future who reads someone writing this word from a past document is just to interpret it in their new context even though it can totally not match its original author’s use.

Compare:

The Bible’s Commandments are laws that may be re-interpreted to apply to the present cultural time and place even if the original meaning is corrupted or changed. Then what are in those particular words and symbols used to convey the old meaning that make them absolute and superior if you can simply change its meaning? For example, Jesus Christ was originally a title, meaning something akin to “I am the God” (Je Zeus) who is “The King of Man” (Christos = the/an annointed one, a person officially announced King or Ceasar). Now, it became the name of this originally unspecified individual.
    This is certainly how religion has evolved. In the interpretation of the Salvation of Christ, originally, this salvation referred to the fact that since he was supposedly understood to be the Messiah that the Jewish Testament prophesied to appear at the end of all time and re-animate all the select dead to rebirth for eternal life in a renewed paradise on Earth, but the end of all time doesn’t seem to transpire, the death of Jesus was to represent that he chose to sacrifice his eternal Earthly presence to create an alter-reality where Paradise does still exist (heaven) for those chosen people. The ‘saving’ was necessary as a function to withdraw God’s initial eternal punishment of permanent death that he cursed mankind for the original sin—choosing to know wisdom for themselves by the act of eating the apple from the Tree of Wisdom.
  No doubt, even First Sin may have been the ‘secular’ explanation for why humans alone have reasoning over other animals, to tame and domesticate plants and animals and must yet struggle to survive with the inevitable end in dying for what seems at odds for their apparent supremacy.
  But this has now evolved into something completely different since the Reformation. Since the protestant movement was a protest against the fact that a human clergy was the go-between and authority on or to God, set off finally when the Pope decided to sell indulgences to assure anyone’s passage to heaven if they can afford it, the post interpretation of Salvation evolved into the concept that only through Jesus (as opposed to a clergy or human authority) could anyone gain the privilege of being chosen to go to heaven upon death. Today this has absurdly been reduced to thinking that simply choosing to believe, even without good works, that Jesus will save you a place in eternity and that his sacrifice was not to resolve Original Sin but everyone’s present sins.

3)
Where there’s a will, there’s a way; Where there’s a way, there’s the will (wish fulfilled).
  So if you presently hate someone so much that you imagine, even to deep fantasy, that you’d desire to kill them, there is always a way and therefore, you will always act and succeed at killing them. Transitively, this means that your thoughts always assure the reality. The fans of the NRA are certain to be superior intellects at the power of such positive thinking considering they love to collect guns because they are assured that this easily conquered world knows that everything will always turn out for the best; Even vengeful intolerant governments could never exist because that just isn’t what they will it. They assure us that they really believe this because they can assure us that even the majority, if not all, criminals have this innate drive and superiority to assure that they always succeed. Okay, so the guy couldn’t initially get a job at McDonald’s because he just didn’t suit their expected qualifications. But his magnificent ability to match his superior will with results and positive thinking assures us that he’ll qualify when he comes in with his wiser idea to bring in a gun next time as a persuasive tool of self-determination. But when he comes in, another thought comes to him…why don’t I just skip to the next step and just ask for an advance up front? Wisdom by such ‘criminals’ even supersedes the will of those self-made millionaires who are stupid enough to continue showing up for work!
  So, like the NRA gun supporters, their ability to mostly or always succeed at their strongest desire, even if that means killing someone, a criminal always gets what they want. I’m sure no criminal is stupid enough to ever get caught and end up in jail. As well, gun supporters really don’t fear that a reckless nor intolerant government could ever overpower them because they believe that if anyone is always certain to determine their outcome like a criminal determined to kill with or without a gun, they are confident that they can kill a bad government with or without a gun themselves!

Compare:

Where there’s a bill to pay, everyone always pays their bill.

4)
Someone like a cool looking dude wielding a gun or fifty is more authoritative and trustworthy and less threatening than any old lady in a wheelchair without one who may merely hold some lousy criminal psychology degree but totes a bag with knitting needles beside her. After all, even if she doesn’t use the needles to slowly stab you to death, she has such powers to call up her friend, the Senator with her sweet words and have the authorities take down your whole fucking family if you piss her off!!

Compare:

If you want to learn to be a good citizen and avoid a life of crime, would it be wiser to consult fifty convicted criminals with their expertise at criminal experience, or one simpleton do-gooder who likes to do dumb charity work and is always so fucking happy?

5)
Hunting is a necessary conventional sport and requires a gun. It’s always good to know that the nature of a true person is demonstrated with such artistry, skill, and courage to go out in the woods with a picnic basket of prepared sandwiches from the spouse and a case of beer, pick a spot in the middle of the preservation that assures the deer population is sufficient enough to supply the sportsmen in season and pick off a calf from a safe distance. Nintendo Wii is child’s play…there’s no kickback when you pull the trigger. And you don’t get that satisfaction of ripping apart a dead corpse and feel that power exuding through your own veins after a fresh kill. At least you can assure yourself that you killed the animal compassionately. Or was it because the adrenaline makes it taste bad on a slow kill?

Compare:

Eating popcorn at the movies is an essential conventional recreation and requires lots of real butter and hopefully, a real date. It’s always good to know that the true nature of a person is demonstrated with such artistry, skill, and courage to ask your best friend’s girl on a date loaded with goodies from the snack bar, and ...oh risky, you snuck in a little whiskey to top off your cokes. You pick a spot at the back of the theater so you can make out while the ushers safely keep an eye out for anyone sneaking in the back door. Watching porn at home alone is child’s play…there’s no kickback when you pull your trigger. And you don’t get that satisfaction of ripping your best friend’s girl away from him feeling the power exuding through your own vein when you get her home to bed. At least you can assure yourself that he’d do the same to you. Or is this just the adrenaline speaking?

 

“Guns don’t kill people; People kill people”

People with guns kill people.  People with guns kill more people than people without guns.  People with assault weapons kill even more people than people with non repeating weapons. To claim that guns don’t kill people is asinine.  It’s like saying bombs don"t kill people. Nobody ever said a gun or a bomb kills people without a human involved. You should drop that line,altogether inless you want to look completely ignorant to anyone with the least intelligence.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 04:36 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 12 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Lois - 15 June 2013 02:59 PM

“Guns don’t kill people; People kill people”

People with guns kill people.  People with guns kill more people than people without guns.  People with assault weapons kill even more people than people with non repeating weapons. To claim that guns don’t kill people is asinine.  It’s like saying bombs don"t kill people. Nobody ever said a gun or a bomb kills people without a human involved. You should drop that line,altogether inless you want to look completely ignorant to anyone with the least intelligence.

You are totally missing the point of what I wrote as I agree with you. I was showing how such claims like these are logically unstable. Each numbered statement is a fallacy.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 04:45 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 13 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
Scott Mayers - 17 June 2013 04:36 PM
Lois - 15 June 2013 02:59 PM

“Guns don’t kill people; People kill people”

People with guns kill people.  People with guns kill more people than people without guns.  People with assault weapons kill even more people than people with non repeating weapons. To claim that guns don’t kill people is asinine.  It’s like saying bombs don"t kill people. Nobody ever said a gun or a bomb kills people without a human involved. You should drop that line,altogether inless you want to look completely ignorant to anyone with the least intelligence.

You are totally missing the point of what I wrote as I agree with you. I was showing how such claims like these are logically unstable. Each numbered statement is a fallacy.

Now I’m concerned how whether others are misreading me.  I think I should have made a different title for the subject to make it clearer. The point of what I was saying was to show how each of the common supporting claims for the support of keeping firearms and against gun controls reduces to absurdities. For each claim, I show how each lead to apparently contrary positions of the very status those believers hold and then show a comparison using the same reasoning in a different subject area.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 17 June 2013 07:19 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 14 ]
Sr. Member
Avatar
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  514
Joined  2010-11-21
LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM
Scott Mayers - 15 June 2013 01:25 PM

What’s this got to do with anything? This is true of any constitution for most countries on Earth. The question I proposed to you was why you cannot use the regular non-constitutional laws that are changeable in the everyday business of politicians to deal with guns rather than keep it in as a fixed law in the Constitution?

Because arms ownership is a fundamental human right, and as such is protected in the Constitution. If removed, local and state governments would be free to infringe on it as they please (not that many still don’t do this to a good degree anyhow).

How is arms ownership a fundamental human right? I can equally claim that it should be a personal human right to have any weapon of destruction, even massively powerful ones that can harm more than one person as it serves my interest to protect my life regardless of other people’s personal disposition towards me.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM

Where are you getting this strange logic from? If it is set in stone that Constitutional laws cannot be detracted from, then there is actually no such thing as an amendment process.

You can remove things from the Constitution, but to “update” it, you’re going to have to add a lot more to it than detract from it, is what I am saying. That is why it is best to leave constitutions to just cover the big, timeless things. If you try to cover all “modern” things, then you get bogged down into length and detail, and then you end up with a constitution that gets outdated fairly quickly.

Please read how I demonstrated the irrationality of this in my first post. If it is rational to create perpetual laws to posterity that must be enforced and never change, why should we not obey one from an ancient proclamation to all of mankind, like the Bible, for instance?

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM

If it was not ambiguous to anyone, then its interpretation would never be brought up or questioned by anyone. Yet it continues to be so in nearly every debate. The problem isn’t that it has one unique correct interpretation from its originators. The problem is to the practical reality that people disagree to its functional meaning in today’s context and have no way to call the original writers to the stand to see how they would fix this discrepancy considering today’s society.

A lot of people bring up its interpretation due to their own lack of knowledge of the scholarship on it. I see journalists do this all the time. Regarding how to apply it in modern times, much of that has to do with a lack of understanding of guns period, IMO.

It is irrelevant that you think there is only one unique interpretation to a law. Everyone who believes in any particular interpretation sincerely believes that there’s is the only true one. What matters is that there exists differences of interpretation. Even if you were correct to assume other people’s misinterpretation due to some lack of knowledge, do you have grounds to assure that the whole collective of all invested scholars have an absolute consensus on the issue?

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM

You agree that at least sometimes groups of insurrection can be evil as well as good. So how is anyone supposed to determine this? The insurrectors are certain to always maintain that they are the good guys. Reality isn’t like Batman where the villains purposely dress to look evil.

It isn’t an exact science, but I’d say most insurrections against the existing government would either have to be very stupid or evil, because there is no reason to try to overthrow a government that you can elect out of office. Now if a particular group is being oppressed and the majority of voters are okay with it, such as when extreme racism was occurring against blacks, that is different, but even then, peaceful civil resistance is always best to try first (and for the blacks population it worked in the end).

But then you are given just reason to agree to NOT having the population be voluntarily armed for the capability of overthrowing government. How would you determine that the majority of people sincerely support a cause if you have a potential evil government that is capable of distorting that status? That government would have to be absurdly stupid to announce that they are a simple minority imposing their force on the population. That was my point regarding villains in comic stories. In reality, no villain will actually believe that they are a villain or at least would not want others to think so and so will not purposely ‘dress’ to appear evil. If they did, they would have a hard time even maintaining the support of even their own people let alone others.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM

It’s a mere technicality that Bush represents the head of a group’s decision-making process. The fact is, his group, represented by him (that’s why you have a Republic and not a Monarchy—the President represents an elected politician and the Head of Government). The excuse for invasion was pushed by the President & company in advance of 9/11 and the relevance of Sadam had zero relations to that event for which they sincerely knew. They purposely were deceptive and actually pretty bad at it too. It was transparent that they were wanting to find any hint of WMDs for an excuse to invade. And when they couldn’t find any, it was all too obvious that they weren’t concerned about truth when a supposedly lone individual claimed to have witnessed them for himself and all of a sudden, all the expertise of such a highly intelligent agency like the C.I.A. and government did not care to check his credibility. Duh!! And claiming afterthefact that, “oh…well, Saddam was a bad guy anyways” is not even grounds in your own courts to justify conviction. I could spread a rumor of how bad someone is without actual evidence, and if he or she turns out to be charged for something else for which a court acts to convict but then discovers errors in the evidence, doesn’t mean that my original rumor should replace the justification for keeping this person locked up. They didn’t get a trial on the rumor.

The point is that all the hoopla from so many other countries about overthrowing Hussein was silly. The man was a brutal tyrant. We know that for a fact. It wasn’t like invading Iraq cost the other countries of the world anything serious (except money for some of them that did business with Hussein). As for WMDs, if the evidence to that really had been so flimsy, the Congress would have exposed it. As it was, numerous politicians going back to the Clinton years (including Clinton himself) had claimed that Hussein had WMDs and was a threat.

“Silly”? You’re claiming the concern from others as merely trivial complaints without addressing their particular claims or justifying yourself. What evidence do you understand was the cause(s) for war? What reason(s) do you claim to know that Hussein was a tyrant and from which sources? Certainly, you cannot presume that the very people who want to overthrow another government for whatever reason is going to credit such governments and their leaders with good or even ambiguously good qualities. It creates indecisiveness to act. So just blindly trusting your authority when they label another as a “tyrant” is not evidence of being one. And even presuming he was bad and did bad things, how is the United States of America the jury and justice provider for the rest of the whole world?
    Also, if it was merely about justice, then there should be NO evidence of external gain to the United States personal economic interests. If I volunteer to be a good Samaritan by saving someone out of a bad circumstance, who am I if I serve to profit from them?

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM

And to your last comment, Bush did punish other people through sanctions to countries that wouldn’t support him and favored those that did. Does it not make you wonder why all of a sudden after he threatened the world with, “you are either for us or against us,” that Britain’s appearance in the American social and economic arena grew so suddenly. Also, Australia, with a smaller population than Canada, also become predominantly a bigger part of the American mindset with Canada given more public attention to criticism.

Not sure what you are talking about here with regards to Britain growing in the American social and economic arena. Also, what sanctions on countries do you mean? I know President Bush enacted sanctions on Iran.


This is just plain arrogance and purposeful ignorance of other countries political and economic concerns. Your country gave economic interests to Brittan through favorable media attention and more exposure to them than any time in history. As a clearer cut case, you also gave Australia, who supported you this same exceptional attention. Considering that Australia has a smaller population than Canada and is on the other side of the globe, did you not notice their growth in the American mindset with an increase in Australian presence in things like the arts (movies and musicians)?
  An example of a punishment to Canadians for not supporting Bush was that your industries banned imported finished products from Canada by creating extensive border fees to such products and services contrary to the prior free trade agreements that was encouraged to stop this.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM

I was pointing out this fact with the understanding that you were aware of the United States’ past involvements in overthrowing democratically elected governments in other countries of the world to be replaced by particular dictators that they want (It’s easier for America to deal with one person in control than a whole population represented by democracies.)

To the extent that the U.S. did that, it was not because it is “easier” to deal with dictators, it was because the democratically-elected governments were either communist or radical Islamists. Remember, democracy does not mean liberal democracy (democratic system that protects human rights and freedoms).

Again, (1) why would it be America’s duty over and above all other countries to act in such a way? (2) If this was true, what reasons make the United States select only such specific countries to do this over other ones that have more just reasons to help on similar grounds? (3) How is the support of the creation of dictatorship for another population regardless of their population’s personal democratic choices superior to the American’s population preferences? American democratic vote isn’t open to those country’s election process. So American governments imposing change on another population is worse than the taxation without representation that the British imposed on American origins.

LogicMan - 15 June 2013 02:02 PM

Well, I can’t picture you discouraging America from imperialising the rest of the world. But you’re only concerned should those in power not favor your particular sub-population for which you would then acceptably call, tyranny.

My particular sub-population? And I have no interest in America trying to “imperialize” the rest of the world.

I’m referring to your assumption that there could be a group of Americans (The whole minus those who govern) would always represent something anything superior to a tyranny. The problem is is that the definition of a democracy implies that the government IS the people by some means. When any group perceives themselves as separate from the government itself in a democracy, they are less than the majority.

 Signature 

I eat without fear of certain Death from The Tree of Knowledge because with wisdom, we may one day break free from its mortal curse.

Profile
 
 
Posted: 18 June 2013 03:25 PM   [ Ignore ]   [ # 15 ]
Member
RankRankRankRankRankRankRankRank
Total Posts:  180
Joined  2013-05-17
Scott Mayers - 17 June 2013 07:19 PM

How is arms ownership a fundamental human right? I can equally claim that it should be a personal human right to have any weapon of destruction, even massively powerful ones that can harm more than one person as it serves my interest to protect my life regardless of other people’s personal disposition towards me.

No you can’t. Arms ownership is a right because one has a natural right to self-defense. Arms are the basic tools of war one uses to defend oneself. One does not use weapons of destruction for self-defense purposes.

Please read how I demonstrated the irrationality of this in my first post. If it is rational to create perpetual laws to posterity that must be enforced and never change, why should we not obey one from an ancient proclamation to all of mankind, like the Bible, for instance?

Where did I say that laws should never change?

It is irrelevant that you think there is only one unique interpretation to a law. Everyone who believes in any particular interpretation sincerely believes that there’s is the only true one. What matters is that there exists differences of interpretation. Even if you were correct to assume other people’s misinterpretation due to some lack of knowledge, do you have grounds to assure that the whole collective of all invested scholars have an absolute consensus on the issue?

Most of the “other interpretations” are from people who have read the amendment without knowing anything about it. In terms of scholarly interpretations, from what I’ve read, most scholars on the subject are in agreement regarding how it was written.

But then you are given just reason to agree to NOT having the population be voluntarily armed for the capability of overthrowing government. How would you determine that the majority of people sincerely support a cause if you have a potential evil government that is capable of distorting that status? That government would have to be absurdly stupid to announce that they are a simple minority imposing their force on the population. That was my point regarding villains in comic stories. In reality, no villain will actually believe that they are a villain or at least would not want others to think so and so will not purposely ‘dress’ to appear evil. If they did, they would have a hard time even maintaining the support of even their own people let alone others.

There probably is no exact way to know if a majority support a cause or not, but one can generally gauge it I’d think by the number of people protesting. If it’s a small group of yahoos, then most probably do not support them. If on the other hand, you end up with thousands in every major city and also in smaller cities and towns, then that is different.

“Silly”? You’re claiming the concern from others as merely trivial complaints without addressing their particular claims or justifying yourself. What evidence do you understand was the cause(s) for war? What reason(s) do you claim to know that Hussein was a tyrant and from which sources? Certainly, you cannot presume that the very people who want to overthrow another government for whatever reason is going to credit such governments and their leaders with good or even ambiguously good qualities. It creates indecisiveness to act. So just blindly trusting your authority when they label another as a “tyrant” is not evidence of being one. And even presuming he was bad and did bad things, how is the United States of America the jury and justice provider for the rest of the whole world?

Hussein was a known tyrant for many years, who tried to acquire nuclear weapons and had used chemical weapons to kill thousands of people. Plus his government was modeled off of Nazi Germany (in a way, he was like a Middle Eastern Hitler). Your asking how does one “know” he was a tyrant is kind of like saying how does anyone “know” Vladimir Putin is oppressive or that Hitler was a tyrant or what have you.

As for calling the other countries against the war “silly,” considering that Hussein was a tyrant and the U.S. was seeking to liberate the people in Iraq from said tyrant, yes it was pretty silly to be complaining so much as so many were. It wasn’t like the U.S. was going in to conquer the area or something. The U.S. should not be the jury and justice provider solely on its own. 

Also, if it was merely about justice, then there should be NO evidence of external gain to the United States personal economic interests. If I volunteer to be a good Samaritan by saving someone out of a bad circumstance, who am I if I serve to profit from them?

Where did the United States profit from invading Iraq? All it did was cost a bunch of money and soldiers.

This is just plain arrogance and purposeful ignorance of other countries political and economic concerns. Your country gave economic interests to Brittan through favorable media attention and more exposure to them than any time in history. As a clearer cut case, you also gave Australia, who supported you this same exceptional attention. Considering that Australia has a smaller population than Canada and is on the other side of the globe, did you not notice their growth in the American mindset with an increase in Australian presence in things like the arts (movies and musicians)?
  An example of a punishment to Canadians for not supporting Bush was that your industries banned imported finished products from Canada by creating extensive border fees to such products and services contrary to the prior free trade agreements that was encouraged to stop this.

I don’t know about the Canadian imports, but I think you are reading too much into some perceived U.S. media attention to Australia and the United Kingdom. The media was mostly against invading Iraq and was not at all friendly to the Bush administration. 

Again, (1) why would it be America’s duty over and above all other countries to act in such a way? (2) If this was true, what reasons make the United States select only such specific countries to do this over other ones that have more just reasons to help on similar grounds? (3) How is the support of the creation of dictatorship for another population regardless of their population’s personal democratic choices superior to the American’s population preferences? American democratic vote isn’t open to those country’s election process. So American governments imposing change on another population is worse than the taxation without representation that the British imposed on American origins.

1) It was America’s duty because it was only America that had the ability to stand up to the Soviet Union.

2) Most of the countries the United States selected was to directly counter the Soviets and other communists. A whole lot of the “crap,” if you will, that happened in the second half of the 20th century around the world, was because of the communists, primarily via the Soviets and the Chinese, wanting to oppress everybody and the U.S. just seeking to counter this.

3) America’s creation is different in that it wasn’t to extract resources and exploit the people for some “American empire” but rather to counter communists. This isn’t to say certain American business interests didn’t seek to exploit the situation at certain times.

I’m referring to your assumption that there could be a group of Americans (The whole minus those who govern) would always represent something anything superior to a tyranny. The problem is is that the definition of a democracy implies that the government IS the people by some means. When any group perceives themselves as separate from the government itself in a democracy, they are less than the majority.

Yes, but in a liberal democracy, the system must protect the majority from the elite minority and the minority from the majority that seeks to oppress their rights. Also, groups that form to resist the government by force if the government suspended the democratic process I think could be superior to a tyranny. It would depend on the group.

Profile
 
 
   
1 of 3
1