The Great Hippo wrote:
Impeach wrote:I don't feel that I should have to justify my rights.
I've decided that I have a right to all your money. Do you feel as if that right requires justification? If not, would you prefer to pay me with a check, or in cash?
we need to justify our rights. Rights exist because they leave us better off. When rights don't leave us better off, we change them, get rid of them, or make new ones. Just as one example: Women didn't have the right to vote in the US. This turned out to be a bad move, so the US expanded voting rights. Another example: At some point, we decided no one had a right to sell certain types of alcohol. Eventually, we couldn't justify this, so we got rid of that right.
Hmm I can see how someone might misunderstand what I meant by not having to justify my rights. You asked whether or not owning a gun would make me happier and all I really meant was that people shouldn't have to demonstrate what practical uses they plan to get out of a right. We have to justify reasons for saying why something IS a right but we don't have to justify our exercising of our rights.
This is how rights work. If they're good, we keep them. If they're bad, we dump them. So...
Impeach wrote:We may differ (or in the end me might not) on whether or not it is a right to own a personal firearm but it makes no difference what I plan to get out of my rights. The whole point is that your rights cannot be challenged and if they are, you can strait up KILL whoever is trying to remove them. Dictators, the ones who are usually the culprits where rights are attacked, will have a pretty hard time controlling a populace that is armed to the teeth.
We also seem to be using different definitions of the word "right." My definition of a right hardly includes ANYTHING and applies to all people, government and civilian. Drawing on some of the philosophy of John Locke, I think of a right as something that you can do without permission or help from an outside party. Our most basic right is that of self ownership and after that we have the right to our labor and to property. Our rights are basic and unchangeable. They are the bare minimum, not what we want to be able to do. So, according to this definition, we do not actually have the right to BUY guns because this requires someone to agree to sell us a gun. Both the buyer and the seller have the right to agree to this transfer of ownership and once it happens, the buyer OWNS the gun.
You do not have the right to my money, because that right already belongs to someone, ME.
Are you sincerely afraid of a dictator rising in the US?
Yes, I am afraid that either a dictator or a foreign power will attempt to usurp control of this country from the legitimate government and use it in dictatorial and oppressive ways. Whether or not this fear is legitimate does not affect whether or not it is a right to simply own a firearm. That is what I meant by saying we don't have to justify our rights. But the fear is legitimate, in fact, this has already happened. When congress stated in no uncertain terms that they didn't authorize any military action in Libya (congress alone has the power to do this), Obama said that since his permission to go to war comes from the UN, "I don't even have to GET TO the constitutional question. The same UN that is trying to establish dominance over our sovereign system of government is very close to succeeding pushing their small arms treaty on this country. This treaty would make it possible for all semi-automatic guns to be confiscated and destroyed. The UN's own website makes it very clear that their goal is to preserve the "legitimate power monopoly" of the state. They even go so far as to talk about the importance of maintaining a monopoly on "violence." This is the exact thing that the second amendment is supposed to protect against. Monopolies of power.
Impeach wrote:As for why you should care about this right as much as freedom of speech and safety against unlawful arrest, at the end of the day, how do you think you retain these rights? If you think that these rights do not need protection, you are mistaken. If I am unlawfully arrested, it happened and whether or not it is legal, my rights were violated. The struggle here is not to get people to verbally agree that these are rights, but to make sure that is how things really work. I should not have to really on a federal government to ensure that this doesn't happen to me. The whole point of a right is that you don't have to ask anyone. You don't need permission to exercise these rights. Someone attempts to keep you from exercising the right to not be indefinitely detained without a trial, you justifiably kill them.
Does having a gun somehow protect you from being unlawfully arrested? If you use a gun to resist an unlawful arrest, how do you think that will work out for you? Do you think the end result will be positive for you?
Impeach wrote:I mentioned earlier about the NDAA, which is an executive order signed early this January. Executive orders are issued by the executive branch without any congressional oversight or input from the courts. This particular executive order says that American citizens, if suspected to be a domestic threat, can be taken by force, detained indefinitely and never have to be given a free trial or even told what they are being accused of. This demonstrates why citizens may very well have to take the enforcement of their rights into their own hands and that is why I support the right to bear arms. It has nothing to do with organizing a militia against foreign invasion, it's just an added bonus that the hundreds of millions of guns in this country would scare the shit out of anyone who even thought about invading.
Do you think that having a gun will somehow protect you if the US government decided to break into your home, arrest you, and take you away to never be seen again? Assuming you don't live in a compound surrounded by armed and trained militia willing to die protecting you.
No, I do not think that having a gun will necessarily protect me from unlawful arrest but it could help and I have the right to try. Since that right is not only one all people can agree on, it is specifically enumerated in the bill of rights, citizens should be able to enforce it. The government is not the only legitimate purveyor of violence for the purpose of protection. We all have the right to the last line of defense because all have the right, PERIOD, to be safe from unlawful arrest (aka kidnapping).
Impeach wrote:Accusations of mental instability aside, what moral objection do you to have with AJ?
If he discovers sincerely troubling decisions made by the government, it won't matter, because it's lost in the haze of nonsense he's constantly spewing. He actually makes it harder
to find out what bad things the government is up to--because if he says it, people assume it's nonsense (because 99% of it probably is
He is a terrible journalist in that his style creates obvious barriers that keep some people from absorbing his information but you would be shocked at how much of what he reports is true. The fact that the leader of the Libyan rebel group, who Hilary Clinton declared as Libya's "only illegitimate governing body" said in a interview with the associated press (and others) that he and his rebels are members of al queda, that they killed Americans in Iraq and plan to kill more Americans, but that first they want to go after Gaddafi is pretty crazy, but that doesn't make it not true. I think decades of full time dirt digging into some disgusting and unbelievable, yet true things has left AJ with some degree of paranoia and a predisposition to conformation bais he reports stuff that is infinitely more important and relevant that what fox and CNN report. Tune in sometime, you don't have to take anything for granted but I promise you will hear something that you are glad to have heard. But for now let us not endanger what has so far been a healthy and respectful discussion with a topic that can be so..... high tension.
Jave D wrote: Impeach wrote:
Jave D wrote:I think your tendency to at once laud and praise the success of the government (in the form of the second amendment) as well as harp on about the "clearly rogue government" has an overall confusing and distorted message which is hard to take seriously even without the other tiresome lines you haul out after it.
I don't have the faintest clue what you are talking about. Whatever it is about your logic that lead you to say this is obviously fucked. You are extrapolating or projecting or doing something but you sure aren't paying attention.
Ah yes, that "your logic is fucked" argument. Very compelling.
I thought I was pretty clear what I was referring to, and don't know how to dumb it down to make it clearer, so, uh, sorry?
It isn't an argument, it's a statement. I did not praise and laud the success of the government. Whatever logical methods you used to decide that I did are flawed because they led you to a conclusion that isn't true. You made it clear that you were referring to my statement that guns are one of the most important tools in a free society. That's how I KNOW your logic is fucked.
I mean, it's all very well and good for you to declare how stoically you accept "shit will happen" to you when with regards to this act, it hasn't. You haven't been gunned down in a movie theater. I would assume none of your family has either. It's a meaningless statement. And ranting with barely-concealed frothing anger about the evil government trying to steal your right to defend yourself, while coldly, casually dismissing mass murders because well, they're a price you'll gladly have other people pay with their lives in order for you to (theoretically) be able to defend yourself is, in the context of this discussion, pretty damn tasteless.
First of all, I am not ranting with barely concealed frothing anger. I am not ranting, my anger is not frothing, and I made no effort to conceal it because it didn't factor into my argument. But then, why shouldn't I be angry?
"clearly rogue government" is a pretty self-righteously angry kind of statement, made twice in your case. And you clearly think anger is justified here, whether you admit to having it or not, which kind of makes my point.
What do you mean when you say "clearly rouge government is a self-righteously angry statement?" You think I woke up angry one day and decided to spout that the government is rouge? Uhhh, the federal government IS rouge. Especially the executive branch. Maybe you would like to read up on the national resources preparedness act? It is, after all, a sweeping executive order passed by the current administration, making it relevant for anyone who want's an educated opinion on federal government today, but I doubt that is really what you want.
Are you so egocentric that you think I making my choice in the context of YOUR life? I worry that my basic rights, which I do not use improperly, will be taken away from me in I way I have no control over. Can't you see that that is real for me? Why are you judging me so harshly for that?
You *are* making the choice in the context of other people's lives. Specifically, those people whose lives were lost in Denver.
No, no I am not. I am still making my decisions in the context of my life. That context includes this event, the people involved, and my empathy towards them. But the context is still my life.
You are trying to take away my right one of a free societies most important tools and all you can come up with is that sadistic criminals misuse them?
I am trying to take away your right now? Interesting. How long have you had this feeling of paranoia towards anyone who expresses disgust at your statements on the internet?
Well I assume you have some problem with the second amendment in which case you would rather see it destroyed than preserved. If this is not the case, you are being angry for no reason and you should lay off the adderall. If it is the case, then don't call me paranoid for thinking wish to remove this right.
You made no attempt to actually look at what I was saying, you mentioned nothing about the fact that guns save more people from violent crimes than they cause, you extrapolated and deluded yourself to the point where your opening statement was about as true as 1=2, accused me of being callous and apathetic about the mass murders (I'm to lazy to go back and read but the exact gist of what I said is "this was horribly tragedy and we all must take great efforts to make sure it doesn't happen," and you call me tasteless?
My opening statement was rather true. You do laud the government's success re: 2nd amendment (you continue to do so; "one of a free society's most important tools"), and you did criticize that same government as "clearly rogue" (whatever that's supposed to mean). And it's all rather tasteless because you're spinning this event into an opportunity to bang the "you're trying to take away my rights" drum and make it all about you. To the point where you can't even address the killing spree except to coldly say that "shit happens." Pretty damned tasteless.
No, it simply was not. I am the highest authority on my own opinion of the government and I am telling you what it is. Are you seriously arguing with me on that? And once again, "shit happens" was not the one thing I said to coldly dismiss this murder. I said it was a horrible tragedy and we must take great effort to keep it from happening again. Why are you still confused about that?
I am not banging the "you're trying to take away my rights" drum because there is no "the". I am saying that the second amendment is my right and that some people are trying to take that away, which I don't want to happen. I didn't make this about me, you did. I was engaging in a perfectly respectful conversation with someone about individual rights. You barged in and started pissing on yourself and trying to make this about my own personal flaws. You haven't said a single word about the subject at hand, only about me.
Everyone's got their own opinion on what taste is. For example, I think it is tasteless to tell someone that they are a bad person because they do not want their rights removed only by force just because your vision of government is different from theirs.
You clearly don't seem to have read what I wrote.
This isn't about taste though, so "it's a meaningless statement," this is about logic, history, and an IQ greater than 50. If you have something that you think might influence what I think about the second amendment
This topic isn't about you, it's not about the second amendment. That you try to make it about both is rather part of my point. Gun rights advocates turn everything into an excuse to rant about free societies as if gun bans would just murder freedom. Some people are mourning the deaths of human beings; you're saying, "shit happens." You're mourning the death of your personal freedoms because that's the real victim here, apparently.[/quote]
I agree, this topic isn't about me, so stop making it about me. However the past posts between me and hippo have been about the subject of the second amendment. This is about a mass shooting so you should be able to conceive of why this is relevant.
I've run out of my limited patience for crap like this. People like you are the reason why information degrades and get's lost. Either keep it relevant and grounded in reality or piss off. Any more posts whose sole purpose is to attack me personally will fall on deaf ears. Feel free to take this as a sign that you've "won" at something.