Skip to main content

View Diary: Gun control and buggy whips (223 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Remember that this "philosophy" has been (6+ / 0-)

    used against many people.

    Recall interracial dating, and god forbid, interracial marriage???

    Recall how if you were Catholic you couldn't run for political office?

    "As long as you're not one of those people, all's good!"

    Your "philosophy" leaves me with disgust.  It's dishonest emotional manipulation meant to intimidate and coerce people from exercising a right you disagree with.

    Isn't this what Republicans want too? To deny people rights they don't agree with?

    "Those loose women getting themselves pregnant!"  Why they oughta be responsible and birth that child!"

    Should we then do the same for religion?  Since I believe religion is a mental disorder, shouldn't we discourage people from exercising it?  Shame and bully them into atheism?

    Or how about how this "philosophy" has been used to by those in power to keep whistleblowers, environmental activists, animal rights activists and "peace loving liberals" from being taken seriously???

    They were just being sent "a gentle message that their behavior is out of bounds!"

    And what's with the label "assailants"???

    Since when did it become a crime to "keep and bear arms"???  Did you guys already rewrite that damn piece of paper and didn't Cc me on it?

    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

    by gerrilea on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 02:58:44 PM PDT

    [ Parent ]

    •  Nice strawperson (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      coquiero

      There's an explicitly-clear distinction...a little gap...you might say an ocean...between my philosophy and the various ills you attribute to it.  

      I don't think what Hunter writes on the FP is "bullying."  I don't think Bill Maher's "New Rule" soliloquys are "bullying."  I don't think A Modest Proposal was "bullying."  All these examples humiliate their targets through a derisive stance, but the goal is not to crush the ego of the opponent, it is to illuminate and neuter bad ideas.  Yes, there's a difference.

       

      •  So, you're dogma of circular logic is being used (6+ / 0-)

        to tell me that black is now white and up is down.

        You wish to deny people their rights,
        just as the Republicans do.  As it stands, gun control is a lost cause and these tactics smell of desperation.  Can't win in the courts, can't win in the Congress or Senate, can't win at the polls, can't put forth a reasoned legitimate argument and you devolve into emotional conditioning.  The problem with that, we're not Pavlov's Dogs.  How elitist of you to think you will get away with it.  

        "It's for their own good!  They just don't understand, the poor wretches!"

        I don't buy into Eric Holder's"brainwashing" or Hunter's and your "philosophy" espoused here.  It won't get more or better Democrats elected, it will however, alienate a huge portion of the American population.  Including many democrats (small d) such as myself that don't buy into propaganda or emotional manipulation.

        And I haven't watched Maher in years, he's controlled opposition, nothing more or less.

        The last time he said anything I remotely agreed with was this:


        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

        by gerrilea on Mon Oct 28, 2013 at 04:56:01 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  I admit the elitism (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          bevenro, coquiero

          and I admit to thinking it's past time to repeal the 2nd (and eat cake while dancing the can-can on its grave; maybe bring a piñata for the kids).  However, we disagree a little bit about the reasons why I see the gun question as a cultural battlefield.  It's not because the factual arguments in favor of improved gun control are lost, aren't reasonable, don't poll well, aren't important to the discussion, etc.; I don't believe any of that.  It's because fundamentally the culture of the gun in America is the problem. Guns don't kill people, people kill people, and the people doing the killing worship the ease and rapidity and efficiency of the firearm-based snuffing process.  In the absence of this prevailing culture of antisocial arrogance and anachronistic frontier mentality, this culture that causes actual harm while contributing jack squat of value in the 21st century, I think we could actually handle the permissive right to bear arms that the founders bequeathed us a couple centuries ago.  The stupidity would certainly have to pipe down to a dull roar before we can talk seriously about the value of the number two amendment as we look to the future.
           

          •  not likely (5+ / 0-)
            The stupidity would certainly have to pipe down to a dull roar before we can talk seriously about the value of the number two amendment as we look to the future.
            As long as people want to restrict others' constitutional rights until society changes to their satisfaction, such stupidity as you espouse will never "pipe down."

            Self-confessed elitists don't get to determine my rights. Thank you for playing.

            Things are more like they are now than they've ever been before...

            by Tom Seaview on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:22:13 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Do you really understand that if the 2nd A was (6+ / 0-)

            repealed, the limited authorities granted to regulate the arms of the militia would be further curtailed?

            Our rights do not come from that piece of paper, you can't "repeal" something we inherently possess.  Would you wish that a new amendment be put in its place?  Something along the lines of "no person shall have the right to self-defense"?

            The problem I see with your argument stems from a false belief that our government has some inherent or divine right to exist and rule over us...it does not.

            The quintessential Federalist, Hamilton, gives a concise argument explaining what our Constitution does and does not do.

            The Federalist No. 84

            It has been several times truly remarked that bills of rights are, in their origin, stipulations between kings and their subjects, abridgements of prerogative in favor of privilege, reservations of rights not surrendered to the prince.

            -cut-

            Here, in strictness, the people surrender nothing; and as they retain every thing they have no need of particular reservations.

            -cut-

            But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.

            We do not have an arbitrary government that grants us political privileges, if it so desires, We The People created it and granted it limited authorities.

            So, when you speak of repealing the 2nd A, it tells me you really don't understand the nation we live in or the central government we created.

            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 06:24:52 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  My understanding (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              coquiero

              Repealing ol' Number Two would make room for a responsive gun regulatory framework such as those we have for automobiles and radioisotopes.  We have an assumed or implicit right to those things too, and that right has been reasonably bounded by statute in order to protect society.  The Second Amendment has long been interpreted as an expression of an inviolable individual right to possess any and all weaponry in "common use," and that static bound makes less and less sense as weaponry evolves.  

              •  "Commerce Clause" theories??? (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                PavePusher

                Or the red herring called "national security"???

                Or both???

                You see, if we didn't grant our government that power, they can't exercise it.  That's pretty clear.

                Our government can't and won't protect society, only we can.

                -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 10:29:43 AM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  Our government is us (1+ / 0-)
                  Recommended by:
                  coquiero

                  The government is (at least in principle) an embodiment of the social contract we make with each other to advance our individual interests.  We have an interest in automotive transportation, but we also have an interest in living long and productive lives.  So, the theory goes, we contract to go about our business under a set of rules that proscribe reckless and unsafe use of automobiles.  In the USA specifically, the machinery of fulfilling such a legitimate role of government may include the Commerce Clause.  In other democracies without our unique federal structure, the specific machinery may not include anything resembling the Commerce Clause; the varying nature of this machinery seems irrelevant to the more fundamental matter of government's legitimate role.  Do you have particular opprobrium toward the Commerce Clause or something? I detect a slight hint of ronpaulism rearing its ugly head here.      

                  •  Our government in principle and our government (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    PavePusher, gerrilea

                    in practice are two radically different things right now. Look at the influence those with money have over those without, as just one example.

                  •  The political theories we founded this nation (0+ / 0-)

                    under still are battling today.  Anti-federalist vs Federalist.

                    When you label my positions as "ronpaulism" you are attempting to control this conversation with "scorn & ridicule", it won't work with me.

                    As I quoted Hamilton previously:

                    But a minute detail of particular rights is certainly far less applicable to a Constitution like that under consideration, which is merely intended to regulate the general political interests of the nation, than to a constitution which has the regulation of every species of personal and private concerns.
                    These 15 words in the Commerce Clause has been used in ways never imagined by our founders:
                    Article 1, Section 8, Clause 3, of the Constitution empowers Congress "to regulate Commerce with foreign Nations, and among several States, and with the Indian Tribes."
                    I absolutely agree with this Federalist.  I don't want you in my house, in my car, in my life telling me what I can and can't know or eat or drink or grow.  I vaguely recall a SC decision that said Congress could deny me the right to grow food to sell because of the commerce clause.  That's why we now pay farmers not to feed the world, to create a scarcity and artificially inflate food prices worldwide to benefit an elite few mega agricultural corporations.
                    http://www.law.cornell.edu/...

                    The defendant argued that the federal government had no authority to regulate firearms in local schools, while the government claimed that this fell under the Commerce Clause since possession of a firearm in a school zone would lead to violent crime, thereby affecting general economic conditions. The Chief Justice rejected this argument, and held that Congress only has the power to regulate the channels of commerce, the instrumentalities of commerce, and action that substantially affects interstate commerce. He declined to further expand the Commerce Clause, writing that “[t]o do so would require us to conclude that the Constitution's enumeration of powers does not presuppose something not enumerated, and that there never will be a distinction between what is truly national and what is truly local. This we are unwilling to do.”

                    What's further distressing here is that these "federal agencies" were granted police powers and now have their very own swat teams!  What the hell is the FDA going after raw milk producers again?  Is this so that their buddies at Monsanto can add aspertame to milk and still call it milk?!!!

                    It's that "good-intentions" thingy again.

                    Considering what we got out of these "re-interpretations" of the Commerce Clause, I'm all for disbanding every single federal agency and starting over. Give We The People the power again to do it ourselves.  The sycophants that have infiltrated our government must be sent packing.  

                    Now if my reasoned argument sounds like "ronpaulism" then you really haven't been paying attention.

                    -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                    by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 01:08:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  ...and the wheels are off the bus! (1+ / 0-)
                      Recommended by:
                      coquiero
                      I'm all for disbanding every single federal agency and starting over
                      Mea culpa.  How could I possibly confuse this with ronpaulism?  I mean, Ron Paul was more moderate in that his "Plan to Restore America" only called for axing about half of the federal agencies rather than every single one.  Now the two of you may differ on the fine points of "starting over":  You may prefer to build something else on the post-apocalyptic rubble and Ron may prefer to just put up his heels and call it a day.  Whatever.  That's an irrelevant discussion to me, but my guess is there are online forums where there is much wind over the decks on such subjects.  You might try paulistas.com, paulbots.com, pault...AHEM! Right.

                      Anyway, those with a progressive outlook, such as me, approach the various dysfunctions of our government with the goal of fixing them.  We aim to keep the baby and flush the bathwater.  Keep the Commerce Clause, flush corporate influence among the regulators.  Keep the ATF, flush the deuce amendment.  Onward and upward, not backward and downward.  

                      •  Your dishonest ad homimens are getting (0+ / 0-)

                        tiresome, adding in "the no true scotsman" diatribe and your failure to discuss is complete.

                        You'll never be able to "flush corporate influence" from our government, not as long as they are "legal persons".  Hell, you'd have a better chance of repealing the entire Constitution and replacing it with this.

                        As long as you espouse "solutions" that will do nothing but move our society closer and closer to an authoritarian dictatorship, one that you believe you'll control...you'll find that people of reason, such as myself, will be standing in your way at every step, pointing people to the facts.

                        Facts you can't or won't discuss because they may reveal the true nature of your elitism.  You don't trust your fellow Americans and you wish to control their every thought and every action from cradle to grave.

                        And imagine, all this started with your "scorn & ridicule philosophy" to emotionally manipulate and control others because they exercise rights you don't like.

                        -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                        by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 05:21:45 PM PDT

                        [ Parent ]

                        •  Don't let the bastards get you down! (1+ / 0-)
                          Recommended by:
                          coquiero

                          Just as the waiter might grind a little pepper on your salad, I prefer to add a lite spritzing of ad-hominem zest to the discussion just to keep it mirthful rather than allow it to get bogged down in dour sniffling.  This is an RKBA thread, fergodsakes; gravitas and humility and ballroom decorum just aren't appropriate.  I mean, you don't wear black tie to Barnum & Bailey!  Loosen up a bit (and try not to step on all the elephant dung).

                          This thread was never about corporate influence, or Goldman Sachs, or the NSA, or the decline of civil liberties (aside: I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty).  Those are serious matters.  We probably are in fundamental agreement about what the problems are, even if the approach to fixing them might differ.  The gun topic, which is the topic of this thread, is one where we don't even agree about the problem.  And so we just need to relax and enjoy the flow and put the piece away.

                           

                          •  I'll relax when you realize it's your (0+ / 0-)

                            position and approach to our constitutionally protected and preexisting rights that has gotten us into this mess in the first place.

                            Your  conditioned compartmentalization is a plague on this nation.

                            This thread was never about corporate influence, or Goldman Sachs, or the NSA, or the decline of civil liberties (aside: I don't consider gun ownership a civil liberty).
                            And I'd love nothing more than to progressively move forward where rights are exercised by all, not just a select few.  

                            Understand that which you espouse here has historically proven disastrous to the very goals you claim you wish this nation to move towards, excepting of course, the right to keep and bear arms.

                            Alexis de Tocqueville

                            In America, when the majority has once irrevocably decided a question, all discussion ceases--Reason f or this--Moral power exercised by the majority upon opinion--Democratic republics have applied despotism to the minds of men.

                            -cut-

                            I know of no country in which there is so little independence of mind and real freedom of discussion as in America.

                            -cut-

                            Such is not the course adopted by tyranny in democratic republics; there the body is left free, and the soul is enslaved. The master no longer says: "You shall think as I do or you shall die"; but he says: "You are free to think differently from me and to retain your life, your property, and all that you possess; but you are henceforth a stranger among your people. You may retain your civil rights, but they will be useless to you, for you will never be chosen by your fellow citizens if you solicit their votes; and they will affect to scorn you if you ask for their esteem. You will remain among men, but you will be deprived of the rights of mankind. Your fellow creatures will shun you like an impure being; and even those who believe in your innocence will abandon you, lest they should be shunned in their turn. Go in peace! I have given you your life, but it is an existence worse than death."

                            It's your philosophy of "scorn & ridicule" that have been employed by the "Moral Majority" to deny me Equity Under Law as a transgendered woman in the majority of these "United States".  30 yrs of their bullcrap that has destroyed unions, destroyed jobs, destroyed our social safety nets, destroyed rights and gone on to kill 133,000 Americans each and every year from forced perpetual poverty while going on to kill millions more worldwide?

                            And then you tell me I should just accept your position/philosophy as valid when you attempt to justify its use against others?  And that now I should "lighten up"?

                            Codswallop!
                            (there I got to use my new word of the day!)

                            ROFL!

                            I'm sick and tired of the demagoguery that has kept us from reaching the stars and evolving past emotional blackmail and manipulation utilized through "social pressures" and now you'd have us pick up that same mantle and do the same?

                            If at any point had you presented a legitimate reasoned argument, I'd have loved to debate you on it.

                            Get back to me when you're ready for a good honest debate and/or discussion.

                            -7.62; -5.95 The scientists of today think deeply instead of clearly. One must be sane to think clearly, but one can think deeply and be quite insane.~Tesla

                            by gerrilea on Tue Oct 29, 2013 at 08:09:59 PM PDT

                            [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site