U.S. vs. Heller: the Flawed Logic.
- Thread starter Sans Authoritas
- Start date
- Status
zxcvbob
Member
Prior restraint is not a reasonable restriction. For the "fire in a crowded theatre" analogy to work, you have to cut out everybody's tongues before they can enter.
But I wonder if Scalia had to put all that crap about reasonable restrictions in the majority opinion in order to get Kennedy to our side?
(He also dropped hints about how to mount a successful plea for "incorporation" in a later case.)
All this sort of philosophical bantering was interesting when I was in college. I find it much less interesting now, and it certainly doesn't have anything to do with the ways, in real life, that laws are enacted or courts decide matters.
In real life, Constitutionally protected (or natural or God given, if you insist) are regulated by the government all the time. Courts have long since fashioned standards and bases for deciding if those regulations will be allowed in light of the protection afforded various such rights by the Constitution. Various folks have in this thread posited, on one hand why some such regulations might be allowed as reasonable. Other folks, on the other hand, have posited why no such regulations could be reasonable.
Nonetheless, the courts will continue to do things their way. And people will go free or go to jail based on the way the courts will address these matter, without regard to the rather unique algorithms proposed here for deciding the question.
In real life, Constitutionally protected (or natural or God given, if you insist) are regulated by the government all the time. Courts have long since fashioned standards and bases for deciding if those regulations will be allowed in light of the protection afforded various such rights by the Constitution. Various folks have in this thread posited, on one hand why some such regulations might be allowed as reasonable. Other folks, on the other hand, have posited why no such regulations could be reasonable.
Nonetheless, the courts will continue to do things their way. And people will go free or go to jail based on the way the courts will address these matter, without regard to the rather unique algorithms proposed here for deciding the question.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Fiddletown wrote:
Fiddle, it sounds to me like you are essentially saying, "I give in. People will always continue to do exactly what they do, and they will keep embracing the status quo without wondering why. I just like "doing the thing right, not doing the right thing." What people do is entirely unrelated to whether it should be done, and unrelated to why it is done. The theoretical is unrelated to the practical. And trying to convince people about a different and possibly better way to perceive things and a better way to act won't accomplish anything."
Would you consider that an accurate approximation of what you are saying?
-Sans Authoritas
Fiddle, it sounds to me like you are essentially saying, "I give in. People will always continue to do exactly what they do, and they will keep embracing the status quo without wondering why. I just like "doing the thing right, not doing the right thing." What people do is entirely unrelated to whether it should be done, and unrelated to why it is done. The theoretical is unrelated to the practical. And trying to convince people about a different and possibly better way to perceive things and a better way to act won't accomplish anything."
Would you consider that an accurate approximation of what you are saying?
-Sans Authoritas
Vibe
Member
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
The flawed logic of the original post is attempting argue that his version of "rights" has anything to do with logic at all. This is nothing more than a pretentious rehashing of Natural Law v. Positive Law. The former being a perfect law somewhere out there to be divined from God or Nature, which humans pitifully attempt to mirror (and our poster arrogantly claims to know). The latter being rules and regulations based on policy considerations and their projected logical effect. This is not a novel debate, although natural rights have come back into fashion lately, but even there the metric for divining them is the same as a policy consideration - tradition. Justices don't sit and pray or try to raise ghosts or read tea leaves to determine Natural rights... they defer to the Public's collected values and tradition, codified either in law or practice, as their measure. But courts of law are courts of man, so reasonably, positive law is what guides them.
If it were otherwise, all you have is nothing but a shouting match between Prophets, each calling the other false and invoking divinity, not reason. "God given right to self-defense!" "God given right to meekness and a world without violence." Blah blah... it may be true, God is probably even on your side, but what does that have to do with logic or reason? How can a Justice be criticized as illogical for not obeying your god over his? That doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it logical... and that's why the OP is pretentious, because he's attempting to frame religion- which is faith- as logic/reason, yet berate the lack of faith in his interpretation as illogical.
Written human law is positive by default and while natural law has its opportunity to be heard as a policy consideration (tradition, reliance, practice, enforceability, etc), claiming a legal decision framed in positive law is illogical shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law and its relation to rights. And that will be a fatal flaw in being able to enact change, being nothing more than another zealot with merely emotional arguments that will be dismissed. Else a revolutionary who entirely changes the system by fiat.
But I suspect such conviction, for revolution, is missing. Actual natural rights (by my estimation) are fought for and bled for. They possess the conviction of its believers in its source and are willing to pay the price to reshape the world to establish them. They don't simply sling ineffectual insults like "illogical" out because they're vexed by an inconvenience, instead they're moved- perhaps unto death- by something of God. If one feels this frustration, they don't necessarily have to take up arms but if they really felt the conviction of this Natural Law upon their heart- and not simply couching their annoyance in grandiose language bigger than their heart- they'd actually take the time to learn how to change it... and that involves understanding the legal system BEFORE criticizing it with empty insults.
1 Cor. 9 "Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air."
The desire for an arm is a practical and efficient one. In spirit, anything a gun can do, you can do for yourself, just not as practically or as efficiently. If you are passionate about arms then LOGICALLY, you would be passionate about the EFFICIENT and PRACTICAL pursuit of a spirit. Perhaps reconsider how your talents are failing to achieve that....
If it were otherwise, all you have is nothing but a shouting match between Prophets, each calling the other false and invoking divinity, not reason. "God given right to self-defense!" "God given right to meekness and a world without violence." Blah blah... it may be true, God is probably even on your side, but what does that have to do with logic or reason? How can a Justice be criticized as illogical for not obeying your god over his? That doesn't make it wrong, but it doesn't make it logical... and that's why the OP is pretentious, because he's attempting to frame religion- which is faith- as logic/reason, yet berate the lack of faith in his interpretation as illogical.
Written human law is positive by default and while natural law has its opportunity to be heard as a policy consideration (tradition, reliance, practice, enforceability, etc), claiming a legal decision framed in positive law is illogical shows a fundamental misunderstanding of law and its relation to rights. And that will be a fatal flaw in being able to enact change, being nothing more than another zealot with merely emotional arguments that will be dismissed. Else a revolutionary who entirely changes the system by fiat.
But I suspect such conviction, for revolution, is missing. Actual natural rights (by my estimation) are fought for and bled for. They possess the conviction of its believers in its source and are willing to pay the price to reshape the world to establish them. They don't simply sling ineffectual insults like "illogical" out because they're vexed by an inconvenience, instead they're moved- perhaps unto death- by something of God. If one feels this frustration, they don't necessarily have to take up arms but if they really felt the conviction of this Natural Law upon their heart- and not simply couching their annoyance in grandiose language bigger than their heart- they'd actually take the time to learn how to change it... and that involves understanding the legal system BEFORE criticizing it with empty insults.
1 Cor. 9 "Therefore I do not run like a man running aimlessly; I do not fight like a man beating the air."
The desire for an arm is a practical and efficient one. In spirit, anything a gun can do, you can do for yourself, just not as practically or as efficiently. If you are passionate about arms then LOGICALLY, you would be passionate about the EFFICIENT and PRACTICAL pursuit of a spirit. Perhaps reconsider how your talents are failing to achieve that....
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
If the Supreme Court as an institution is operating on flawed principles, what way is there to change it except by convincing society that it is operating under flawed principles? I personally believe that the very existence of the Supreme Court is an indication that society is acting according to very flawed principles. If you want pomp, self-importance and lives wasted "beating the air," in trying to win the little battles in the game of politics and legislation by creating and finding loopholes and ambiguous wording to get your will imposed on others, look no further than the legal system.
You cannot alter the nature of an institution from within. Would you say, "If you want to get rid of a concentration camp, get a job there and work to reduce the amount of slaughter that happens there?" Would you say, "Elect a new death camp commandant?" Death camps don't stay in existence because 5 men couldn't destroy a death camp. They could. But a new death camp would be built in its place overnight. Death camps come into existence and stay in existence because powerful men create them and the majority of people acquiesce to their continued existence.
Those are the reasons why both violence and working within the system are ultimately fruitless. They have the support (if only tacit support) of the majority of people. I do not expect to start a grand revolution of "new thought." I only hope I can minimize the amount of damage done by men and women in positions of power by decreasing their support base, one heart and mind at a time. I want to intercept people's thought patterns before they cling to a collectivist, might-makes-right, "God wrote the U.S. Constitution" and "you must obey the law because it is a law" mindset. I want to convince people there should be no positive law against any acts except real acts of aggression or fraud on the real life, liberty and property of real people. If I'm able to do that, I'll have made the world a less violent place.
A lot of people are wrongly attributing some grandiose, messianic attitude to my words. It ain't so. I simply want to make the world a little less violent. And that can be done by convincing people not to cling to ideas that inevitably result in unnecessary violence, such legal positivism, malum prohibitum regulations and regulations that claim to protect against acts that infringe upon God's rights, not men's rights.
That's all. Is that really what any of you consider "messianic," or "pompous," or "martyric?"
-Sans Authoritas
You cannot alter the nature of an institution from within. Would you say, "If you want to get rid of a concentration camp, get a job there and work to reduce the amount of slaughter that happens there?" Would you say, "Elect a new death camp commandant?" Death camps don't stay in existence because 5 men couldn't destroy a death camp. They could. But a new death camp would be built in its place overnight. Death camps come into existence and stay in existence because powerful men create them and the majority of people acquiesce to their continued existence.
Those are the reasons why both violence and working within the system are ultimately fruitless. They have the support (if only tacit support) of the majority of people. I do not expect to start a grand revolution of "new thought." I only hope I can minimize the amount of damage done by men and women in positions of power by decreasing their support base, one heart and mind at a time. I want to intercept people's thought patterns before they cling to a collectivist, might-makes-right, "God wrote the U.S. Constitution" and "you must obey the law because it is a law" mindset. I want to convince people there should be no positive law against any acts except real acts of aggression or fraud on the real life, liberty and property of real people. If I'm able to do that, I'll have made the world a less violent place.
A lot of people are wrongly attributing some grandiose, messianic attitude to my words. It ain't so. I simply want to make the world a little less violent. And that can be done by convincing people not to cling to ideas that inevitably result in unnecessary violence, such legal positivism, malum prohibitum regulations and regulations that claim to protect against acts that infringe upon God's rights, not men's rights.
That's all. Is that really what any of you consider "messianic," or "pompous," or "martyric?"
-Sans Authoritas
Last edited:
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
Although your words and not mine ("messianic", "pompous" etc), I'd characterize it more as "whining"... as in, "Don't listen to SCOTUS, they're illogical! But listen to ME... even though I am too!"
"Right" is a legal term of art, but the entire basis of your criticism is that it isn't being used [in a legal document] the way YOU interpret god as telling you what it means [philosophically] based on faith. That deficit makes you entirely ineffectual whatever your fantasies of change may be.
By the by, weapons themselves are not ideologically pure. They're a compromise and practical means to an end, LIKE THE LAW. The point of cops carrying guns is to stop an immediate evil or halt a crime, NOT merely to shoot a crook or kill a criminal. Law is a system essentially based on logic, even where the outcome is disfavorable to one side as is expected in democratic politics.
I think either as a religious individual or a student of history you'd know better than to claim the nature of an institution can't be changed from within. You probably pick the worst illustration in the world... there are a number of death-camp officer conversion/change stories; in fact, in Christian theology, Earth is a death camp changed within the system (thus the requirement of incarnation, death, resurrection). The whole reason for having Christians in the world and not instantly moving on to Judgment Day is for them to effectuate change within the system, having impact while living their lives. Further, anyone who subscribes to Originalism believes this nation and system was one way then ultimately changed to another from within. Without even being so abstract, just look at the Republican Party or the Presidency or role of SCOTUS.
Believing system change is impossible is either pointless fatalism, tacit denial of reality, or ignorance. Whatever the circumstance, SCOTUS got people talking/acting and if you were serious about it- serious about efficacy- serious about change- then you'd want to know how to use the language/tool of law or politics. Your equivocation of the legal term of art "right" with an ambiguous philosophical "right" proves you lack that knowledge to credibly criticize, much less spread some kind of message.
Stop the fake intellectualism. Either find a way to have your view of a natural right codified or take up a sword and make it so.
"Right" is a legal term of art, but the entire basis of your criticism is that it isn't being used [in a legal document] the way YOU interpret god as telling you what it means [philosophically] based on faith. That deficit makes you entirely ineffectual whatever your fantasies of change may be.
By the by, weapons themselves are not ideologically pure. They're a compromise and practical means to an end, LIKE THE LAW. The point of cops carrying guns is to stop an immediate evil or halt a crime, NOT merely to shoot a crook or kill a criminal. Law is a system essentially based on logic, even where the outcome is disfavorable to one side as is expected in democratic politics.
I think either as a religious individual or a student of history you'd know better than to claim the nature of an institution can't be changed from within. You probably pick the worst illustration in the world... there are a number of death-camp officer conversion/change stories; in fact, in Christian theology, Earth is a death camp changed within the system (thus the requirement of incarnation, death, resurrection). The whole reason for having Christians in the world and not instantly moving on to Judgment Day is for them to effectuate change within the system, having impact while living their lives. Further, anyone who subscribes to Originalism believes this nation and system was one way then ultimately changed to another from within. Without even being so abstract, just look at the Republican Party or the Presidency or role of SCOTUS.
Believing system change is impossible is either pointless fatalism, tacit denial of reality, or ignorance. Whatever the circumstance, SCOTUS got people talking/acting and if you were serious about it- serious about efficacy- serious about change- then you'd want to know how to use the language/tool of law or politics. Your equivocation of the legal term of art "right" with an ambiguous philosophical "right" proves you lack that knowledge to credibly criticize, much less spread some kind of message.
Stop the fake intellectualism. Either find a way to have your view of a natural right codified or take up a sword and make it so.
Bravo.
Excellent posts and a welcome respite to the pseudo-intelligenzia blather being espused.
Still trying to figure out how this thread relates to firearms any more so than it can relate to income tax evasion or rape, but your replies were excellent.
jackie treehorn
Member
Agreed...
After reading all of the posts (I am stuck at the airport in Portland, ME so I've got time to kill), I have to agree that Sans invoking the natural v. positive right argument is futile. Look, we live in a society of laws. YOU may not like that, but the fact still remains. I am no socialist, by any stretch, but let me be clear the Constitution is only a restriction on government, not on man. These arguments about laws, etc. are not related to the Constitution insofar as the 2A is concerned. If you want to practice natural law, the only reasonable (pun intended) way to do it is in isolation.
Our laws are made to create order. We need stoplights and parking meters. You may think that you have the "right" to park anywhere, but that's just not true. One of the few rights we do have is self-defense, but that's still subject to positive law (equal force).
I have concerns about prior restraint, and while I appreciate natural law, it's pure fantasy and the end result is toward anarchy. I always err on the side of freedom, but anarchy is too far. Laws are instituted by men to create reasonable living conditions. As so many have said, I am free to kick you in the balls, but that doesn't mean it's my liberty to do so.
Jackie Treehorn
After reading all of the posts (I am stuck at the airport in Portland, ME so I've got time to kill), I have to agree that Sans invoking the natural v. positive right argument is futile. Look, we live in a society of laws. YOU may not like that, but the fact still remains. I am no socialist, by any stretch, but let me be clear the Constitution is only a restriction on government, not on man. These arguments about laws, etc. are not related to the Constitution insofar as the 2A is concerned. If you want to practice natural law, the only reasonable (pun intended) way to do it is in isolation.
Our laws are made to create order. We need stoplights and parking meters. You may think that you have the "right" to park anywhere, but that's just not true. One of the few rights we do have is self-defense, but that's still subject to positive law (equal force).
I have concerns about prior restraint, and while I appreciate natural law, it's pure fantasy and the end result is toward anarchy. I always err on the side of freedom, but anarchy is too far. Laws are instituted by men to create reasonable living conditions. As so many have said, I am free to kick you in the balls, but that doesn't mean it's my liberty to do so.
Jackie Treehorn
jackie treehorn
Member
LOL!
Hilarious!
Hilarious!
Sans, actually what I am saying is that if you want to participate in the real world, rather than merely in the cyberspace equivalent of the college dorm room bull session, you need learn the rules of the real world and the ways things are done. Unless you speak the proper language, formulate your arguments in the proper manner and support your arguments properly, no one who actually does anything in the real world will take you seriously.
The courts have been doing things in a certain way for a long time, and they are not going to change because some guys in a gun forum think it would be swell if they did. And indeed, the current process does allow for change. Heller demonstrates that.
And if you think that your approach can yield change, pray tell us who other than your buddies on the Internet (and perhaps at your local gun range) is paying positive attention to your ideas. What have you actually accomplished in the real world?
So if you think that you have something to offer in this sphere, go to law school, get your J. D., learn the ropes and have at it.
The courts have been doing things in a certain way for a long time, and they are not going to change because some guys in a gun forum think it would be swell if they did. And indeed, the current process does allow for change. Heller demonstrates that.
And if you think that your approach can yield change, pray tell us who other than your buddies on the Internet (and perhaps at your local gun range) is paying positive attention to your ideas. What have you actually accomplished in the real world?
So if you think that you have something to offer in this sphere, go to law school, get your J. D., learn the ropes and have at it.
umm...
I don't think that word means what you think it does.
Freedom has absolutely nothing to do with 'what you ought'
Freedom means 'lack of restriction' or 'free of restraint' It has nothign to do with right/wrong, or ought/ought-not
When it boils down to it, ought/ought-not is a personal moral choice. Some folks say you ought-not insult people, use racial slurs, complain loudly, etc. If Freedom was based on ought/ought-not, whose definition of ought/ought-not do we use? By many definitions, freedom of speech would be extremely limited, but that would fall under 'unrestricted' and 'free' by your definition
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
PaladinX13 wrote:
It's not about faith. Plain reason can get someone to the definition of a right. One doesn't need to bring God into it at all. A right is intrinsic to human nature, and unalienable from it. You have a human right, based in nature, to effectively defend yourself, do you not? Humans, by nature, use tools, among which are weapons. If everyone has weapons but you, you aren't able to effectively defend yourself, are you? Therefore, the ability to exercise your right is infringed. No one has the right to deny you the ability to effectively defend yourself. And no one has the human right to initiate violence against you to prevent you from performing an act that is not an initiation of violence against anyone else, do they?
Can we somehow justly create a set of laws that contradict and nullify natural human rights? I "radically" propose that we cannot.
PaladinX13 wrote:
Law is supposed to be based on logic. Logic dictates that no one may initiate violence against any other man. Initiation of violence includes using force to arrest and punish someone who did nothing but peacably carry a firearm for self-defense. Is this statement illogical? Then how can you justify any law that prohibits men from carrying firearms?
PaladinX13 wrote:
Yes, some death-camp officers converted. And what happened to them? Were the death camps shut down because someone in charge had a change of heart? No. Such men were thrown to the wolves, a replacement was rapidly found for them, and the death mills churned on. Was it a positive thing that such a man converted? Absolutely. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to promote. However, was his one conversion ultimately and practically able to undermine the entire philosophy and infrastructure that brought about the death camps in the first place? No. No, the system as a whole can only be changed when more and more people refuse to tolerate and support a death camp: ideologically and monetarily.
PaladinX13 wrote:
While it is true that we are called to have an impact while we live our lives, Earth is more of a sorting zone than a death camp. It is where men choose what behaviors they will espouse in this life, and will reap the result of their actions in the next. Not everyone here is condemned. Souls can be saved. Some people try to save souls like in radical Islam: by the sword. You cannot, by definition, force anyone to believe anything. It is a contradiction in terms, as belief is a free, uncoerced acceptance of truth as perceived by the intellect. Radical Islam is a prime example of men trying to pound the square peg of human nature into the round hole of their flawed concept of human nature. Their practical and violent actions flow from their flawed ideas of what it is to be human, and what acts are moral to attain their desired end.
In this discussion, I'm trying to point out that what one believes about rights and human nature is either right or wrong, and the actions that spring from these beliefs will be non-violent or violent, depending on whether or not the beliefs themselves are logically sound. If you believe that no man may initiate violence against another man, you can still have laws: but only laws that prohibit actual initations of violence against other men. What other laws do you want? And what do you think their practical effects will be? I've answered several of your points. Can you answer some of mine?
PaladinX13 wrote:
I do not believe that systemic change is impossible. I wouldn't be here if I believed that. I am saying that it is logically unsound to attempt to change a system that was built and continues to be sustained from the bottom up, by starting from the top down.
Systems are built (or at least allowed to exist) by the individuals who live within a particular geographical region. A violent regime cannot be sustained if the majority of people refuse to tolerate its existence. The institution of slavery survived John Brown. Why? Because the majority of people did not actually support his actions or his beliefs. Was John Brown justified in his actions? Certainly. Freeing men from slavery is a noble endeavor. Was it practically effective in eradicating slavery? Not very likely. Slavery would have continued had it had the support of the majority of people in the North and South, and if it continued to be economically feasible. It gradually lost both economic sustainability and popular support until the 1860's, when the War of Northern Aggression was fought. Of course, the War between the States was initiated to ensure that all men labored for the same Master. But that's a side note.
PaladinX13 wrote:
I will never take up a sword in an attempt to force other people to think the way I think. You are more than willing to so use the sword, or at least help someone else use it, if you support and approve of laws that punish men for actions that are not in themselves violations of the rights of others, as every Supreme Court justice does.
Is that fake intellectualism? Tell me why.
-Sans Authoritas
It's not about faith. Plain reason can get someone to the definition of a right. One doesn't need to bring God into it at all. A right is intrinsic to human nature, and unalienable from it. You have a human right, based in nature, to effectively defend yourself, do you not? Humans, by nature, use tools, among which are weapons. If everyone has weapons but you, you aren't able to effectively defend yourself, are you? Therefore, the ability to exercise your right is infringed. No one has the right to deny you the ability to effectively defend yourself. And no one has the human right to initiate violence against you to prevent you from performing an act that is not an initiation of violence against anyone else, do they?
Can we somehow justly create a set of laws that contradict and nullify natural human rights? I "radically" propose that we cannot.
PaladinX13 wrote:
Law is supposed to be based on logic. Logic dictates that no one may initiate violence against any other man. Initiation of violence includes using force to arrest and punish someone who did nothing but peacably carry a firearm for self-defense. Is this statement illogical? Then how can you justify any law that prohibits men from carrying firearms?
PaladinX13 wrote:
Yes, some death-camp officers converted. And what happened to them? Were the death camps shut down because someone in charge had a change of heart? No. Such men were thrown to the wolves, a replacement was rapidly found for them, and the death mills churned on. Was it a positive thing that such a man converted? Absolutely. That's the kind of thing I'm trying to promote. However, was his one conversion ultimately and practically able to undermine the entire philosophy and infrastructure that brought about the death camps in the first place? No. No, the system as a whole can only be changed when more and more people refuse to tolerate and support a death camp: ideologically and monetarily.
PaladinX13 wrote:
While it is true that we are called to have an impact while we live our lives, Earth is more of a sorting zone than a death camp. It is where men choose what behaviors they will espouse in this life, and will reap the result of their actions in the next. Not everyone here is condemned. Souls can be saved. Some people try to save souls like in radical Islam: by the sword. You cannot, by definition, force anyone to believe anything. It is a contradiction in terms, as belief is a free, uncoerced acceptance of truth as perceived by the intellect. Radical Islam is a prime example of men trying to pound the square peg of human nature into the round hole of their flawed concept of human nature. Their practical and violent actions flow from their flawed ideas of what it is to be human, and what acts are moral to attain their desired end.
In this discussion, I'm trying to point out that what one believes about rights and human nature is either right or wrong, and the actions that spring from these beliefs will be non-violent or violent, depending on whether or not the beliefs themselves are logically sound. If you believe that no man may initiate violence against another man, you can still have laws: but only laws that prohibit actual initations of violence against other men. What other laws do you want? And what do you think their practical effects will be? I've answered several of your points. Can you answer some of mine?
PaladinX13 wrote:
I do not believe that systemic change is impossible. I wouldn't be here if I believed that. I am saying that it is logically unsound to attempt to change a system that was built and continues to be sustained from the bottom up, by starting from the top down.
Systems are built (or at least allowed to exist) by the individuals who live within a particular geographical region. A violent regime cannot be sustained if the majority of people refuse to tolerate its existence. The institution of slavery survived John Brown. Why? Because the majority of people did not actually support his actions or his beliefs. Was John Brown justified in his actions? Certainly. Freeing men from slavery is a noble endeavor. Was it practically effective in eradicating slavery? Not very likely. Slavery would have continued had it had the support of the majority of people in the North and South, and if it continued to be economically feasible. It gradually lost both economic sustainability and popular support until the 1860's, when the War of Northern Aggression was fought. Of course, the War between the States was initiated to ensure that all men labored for the same Master. But that's a side note.
PaladinX13 wrote:
I will never take up a sword in an attempt to force other people to think the way I think. You are more than willing to so use the sword, or at least help someone else use it, if you support and approve of laws that punish men for actions that are not in themselves violations of the rights of others, as every Supreme Court justice does.
Is that fake intellectualism? Tell me why.
-Sans Authoritas
Last edited:
kentucky bucky
Member
It bugs me to here people on TV saying that this ruling "gives" the individual the right to bear arms. For one thing God and only God can give us a right to self defence and the 2nd Amendment simply confirms it to all Americans in writing. It also worries me that 4 judges on the highest court can't understand this.
I say again: there is no "reasonable restriction" on a right. Either an act is a right, or it is not.
It's just semantics. They say they are restricting a right. You say they can't restrict a right because it is not a right anyway. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. You both (SCOTUS and Sans Authoritas) agree people should not legally be allowed to yell fire in a crowded place when the person yelling knows there is no fire. It's all semantics.
Personally, I'm pretty excited about the recent decision in the Heller case. When I consider the way things in England and Australia have gone, it's nice to have a supreme court ruling in favor of an individual right to own a firearm for self-defense, when courts previously had claimed in certain instances that the 2A only protected a collective right. And to further have SCOTUS single out handguns as being a firearm that should be available to lawful citizens for self-protection--I was excited about it.
"They think...that a law regulating who may peacably carry is somehow a "reasonable restriction" on your right to peacably carry a firearm. Foolishness."
I think the opposite. I think that a law stating there may be no regulation on who may carry a firearm is pure foolishness. We have good laws preventing the mentally ill from possessing firearms. Same with minors. If those laws had been followed and correctly enforced, there'd be no Columbine, and no Virginia Tech. Not to mention, there'd be a mentally ill woman who'd still be alive here in my town in Utah, and even better, there'd be a cop without a bullet in his brain and in critical condition. But somehow these guns found there way into the hands of minors and the mentally ill. And because of that, the public cries for more gun control. We need better law enforcement in the realm of gun sales with already existing and sufficient laws, not more laws. But to say that we shouldn't restrict the sale and ownership of guns from too young people or the mentally unstable is foolishness.
As for me, I say way to go SCOTUS.
It's just semantics. They say they are restricting a right. You say they can't restrict a right because it is not a right anyway. Either way, it amounts to the same thing. You both (SCOTUS and Sans Authoritas) agree people should not legally be allowed to yell fire in a crowded place when the person yelling knows there is no fire. It's all semantics.
Personally, I'm pretty excited about the recent decision in the Heller case. When I consider the way things in England and Australia have gone, it's nice to have a supreme court ruling in favor of an individual right to own a firearm for self-defense, when courts previously had claimed in certain instances that the 2A only protected a collective right. And to further have SCOTUS single out handguns as being a firearm that should be available to lawful citizens for self-protection--I was excited about it.
"They think...that a law regulating who may peacably carry is somehow a "reasonable restriction" on your right to peacably carry a firearm. Foolishness."
I think the opposite. I think that a law stating there may be no regulation on who may carry a firearm is pure foolishness. We have good laws preventing the mentally ill from possessing firearms. Same with minors. If those laws had been followed and correctly enforced, there'd be no Columbine, and no Virginia Tech. Not to mention, there'd be a mentally ill woman who'd still be alive here in my town in Utah, and even better, there'd be a cop without a bullet in his brain and in critical condition. But somehow these guns found there way into the hands of minors and the mentally ill. And because of that, the public cries for more gun control. We need better law enforcement in the realm of gun sales with already existing and sufficient laws, not more laws. But to say that we shouldn't restrict the sale and ownership of guns from too young people or the mentally unstable is foolishness.
As for me, I say way to go SCOTUS.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
cowssurf wrote:
Incorrect on both counts. The buyer for Klebold and Harris was someone legally allowed to purchase. She straw-bought. The laws would never have stopped her. Unless, of course, she chose to obey them. But then, that's the honor system version of "law." Then there's the reality of what a law should be: someone who actually commits a real (violent or fraudulent) crime is responsible for it.
The same goes for Cho. He was legally able to purchase the firearm, as he had never been adjudicated mentally defective, nor had he been involuntarily institutionalized within the prohibited window.
cowssurf wrote:
No, the hands of dangerous people found their way to the grips of those guns. There's a difference. And no gun law could have prevented that from happening, just as a near total ban in D.C. had not prevented it from being among the most violent cities in the U.S., and just as Britain can't prevent sub-$2000 full-autos from being available to those who want them.
-Sans Authoritas
Incorrect on both counts. The buyer for Klebold and Harris was someone legally allowed to purchase. She straw-bought. The laws would never have stopped her. Unless, of course, she chose to obey them. But then, that's the honor system version of "law." Then there's the reality of what a law should be: someone who actually commits a real (violent or fraudulent) crime is responsible for it.
The same goes for Cho. He was legally able to purchase the firearm, as he had never been adjudicated mentally defective, nor had he been involuntarily institutionalized within the prohibited window.
cowssurf wrote:
No, the hands of dangerous people found their way to the grips of those guns. There's a difference. And no gun law could have prevented that from happening, just as a near total ban in D.C. had not prevented it from being among the most violent cities in the U.S., and just as Britain can't prevent sub-$2000 full-autos from being available to those who want them.
-Sans Authoritas
I'm saying the correct laws are there. And I think more stringent enforcement (harsher punishment for straw purchases, for instance) would curb a lot of gun violence.
My big question to you Sans, is, do you think the mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms? And do you think youngsters should be allowed to own firearms? If your answer to either is yes, I'd be interested to know your reasons.
My big question to you Sans, is, do you think the mentally ill should be allowed to own firearms? And do you think youngsters should be allowed to own firearms? If your answer to either is yes, I'd be interested to know your reasons.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
cowssurf wrote:
Cowssurf, how can anyone possibly enforce a law against straw purchases, if the purchaser isn't a complete idiot in how he goes about it?
Pre-1968, you could order and receive a firearm by mail. Where were the school shootings? Where was the everyday bloodshed and violence? FFL regulations and straw-purchase laws are nothing but Band-Aids on gangrene: absolutely and ultimately ineffective, but it makes the situation look better.
It depends. Is the mentally ill person a threat to other people? If he is, why is a human time bomb walking around free? He can kill more people in a shorter amount of time with a $4 gallon of gas than he can with a $500 rifle.
In other words, if someone is really a grave threat to other people, he should be institutionalized. If he's not a grave threat, then he should absolutely be able to have firearms. The second he threatens or harms someone and the situation merits it, he, like everyone else who does likewise, will have proven himself a threat, and can then be institutionalized.
As for youngsters? That is up to the parents of the child. Not me. The parents have a responsibility to ensure that the child handles the firearms in a safe, mature manner.
I personally will not let my kids have easy access to firearms until I think they are mature enough.
-Sans Authoritas
Cowssurf, how can anyone possibly enforce a law against straw purchases, if the purchaser isn't a complete idiot in how he goes about it?
Pre-1968, you could order and receive a firearm by mail. Where were the school shootings? Where was the everyday bloodshed and violence? FFL regulations and straw-purchase laws are nothing but Band-Aids on gangrene: absolutely and ultimately ineffective, but it makes the situation look better.
It depends. Is the mentally ill person a threat to other people? If he is, why is a human time bomb walking around free? He can kill more people in a shorter amount of time with a $4 gallon of gas than he can with a $500 rifle.
In other words, if someone is really a grave threat to other people, he should be institutionalized. If he's not a grave threat, then he should absolutely be able to have firearms. The second he threatens or harms someone and the situation merits it, he, like everyone else who does likewise, will have proven himself a threat, and can then be institutionalized.
As for youngsters? That is up to the parents of the child. Not me. The parents have a responsibility to ensure that the child handles the firearms in a safe, mature manner.
I personally will not let my kids have easy access to firearms until I think they are mature enough.
-Sans Authoritas
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
Sans Authoritas wrote:
Sans Authoritas wrote:
dm1333 wrote:
If my first statement were in the context of a Special Forces guerrilla warfare book, or if that had come from the mouth of some general in Afghanistan or Iraq, concerning denying support to the Taliban or "insurgents" respectively, you would have doubtless considered those words to be "practical advice for achieving a practical end." But because I said it about another cause, it suddenly becomes "grandiose and messianic."
It doesn't follow, dm1333.
-Sans Authoritas
Sans Authoritas wrote:
dm1333 wrote:
If my first statement were in the context of a Special Forces guerrilla warfare book, or if that had come from the mouth of some general in Afghanistan or Iraq, concerning denying support to the Taliban or "insurgents" respectively, you would have doubtless considered those words to be "practical advice for achieving a practical end." But because I said it about another cause, it suddenly becomes "grandiose and messianic."
It doesn't follow, dm1333.
-Sans Authoritas
PaladinX13
Member
- Joined
- Dec 29, 2002
- Messages
- 747
Please stop talking about law and logic without understanding them
Bottom-line up front: Even if spirit of some aspect of your confused rant gets it right somehow, your misappropriation of law and logic in a selfish bid for self-aggrandizement in the form of pseudo-intellectualism only serves to denigrate your cause, yourself, and the gun community... all better served if you stuck to things you actually know about.
Though it really isn't worth feeding your need for attention (limiting my response) I must point out the continual intellectual bankruptcy (at best, fraud at worst) here which casts gun-owners in a bad light:
(1) The law is just a tad more sophisticated than that and this analogy has all the intellectual rigor and consistent logic as the "proof": "Killing is evil, guns only kill, thus guns are evil." The fallacies are crushing... how does logic dictate no one may initiate violence? Logic is mathematical proof and certainty. It is a tool of rational truth (as opposed to, say, spiritual, subjective, or absolute truth which have NO meaning in the mathematical language of logic) that is ALWAYS true. The very fact that people DO initiate violence indicates logic has no ability to dictate anything in that sphere of human will. I regret to inform you that thinking highly of your own opinion does not make an opinion "logical". This misunderstanding of logic disqualifies you from using "logic" as the basis of any of your arguments or criticism.
(2) Next, you DECLARE what an initiation of violence includes without respect to WHERE this definition comes from or making any kind of distinction between state or individual actors nor time, place, or manner. Nothing of notice, legality, lenity, or social contract. It's nothing but a statement with all the depth and accuracy of "Guns only kill." This misunderstanding of law disqualifies you from using "law" (as you mistakenly perceive it, opposed to what it actually is) as the basis of any of our arguments or criticism.
(3) Finally, after a long windup that is intellectually dishonest at worst, faulty analysis at best- but most likely evidence of a lack of critical comprehension as to law, logic, and language- you jump to the only potentially substantive question whose potential is stolen by a lack of ANY substantive parameters... because, and this was INTENTIONALLY intellectually dishonest, you think your question is rhetorical and self-evident. You ask, snidely, for a justification for regulation. That's easy! Justifications are easy, rationalizations are easy. What you meant to say was a justification that you and you alone will accept, while thinking to yourself, "Hah, none!" A conclusion reached before the proof was ever laid out is a far cry from logic (except for your fraudulent brand).
This hubris and intoxication of your own self-importance is embarrassing! Who CARES whether you think a justification for a regulation is reasonable? NO ONE DOES. What's relevant in a nation of laws is whether there can be sufficient consensus consistent with the social contract, to persuade enforcement, and for people to accept and largely abide by such enforcement. If you alone refused to accept a justification that everyone else adopts, not only are you out of the boundaries of positive law, likely you missed the mark on the natural one too unless you deem yourself the infallible source of natural law- not sourced from God Almighty but you putting yourself in his stead.
Logic is dispassionate and has no affiliation with your views (or mine for that matter, only to the extent that I actually understand what it is). The law, despite its fusion with politics, is similarly dispassionate as it is meant to provide a language with which to speak across ideological barriers and build social consensus apart from purely individual notions of natural law. It's why DC will have to abide by the Heller decision despite individual disagreement, because the law of it is sound.
Hijacking "logic" and "law" the way you do is the same as criticisms against "assault weapons" or "high capacity handguns" founded on arguments with little to no comprehension of the subject at hand.
Bottom-line up front: Even if spirit of some aspect of your confused rant gets it right somehow, your misappropriation of law and logic in a selfish bid for self-aggrandizement in the form of pseudo-intellectualism only serves to denigrate your cause, yourself, and the gun community... all better served if you stuck to things you actually know about.
Though it really isn't worth feeding your need for attention (limiting my response) I must point out the continual intellectual bankruptcy (at best, fraud at worst) here which casts gun-owners in a bad light:
Hahaha! [/tears]
(1) The law is just a tad more sophisticated than that and this analogy has all the intellectual rigor and consistent logic as the "proof": "Killing is evil, guns only kill, thus guns are evil." The fallacies are crushing... how does logic dictate no one may initiate violence? Logic is mathematical proof and certainty. It is a tool of rational truth (as opposed to, say, spiritual, subjective, or absolute truth which have NO meaning in the mathematical language of logic) that is ALWAYS true. The very fact that people DO initiate violence indicates logic has no ability to dictate anything in that sphere of human will. I regret to inform you that thinking highly of your own opinion does not make an opinion "logical". This misunderstanding of logic disqualifies you from using "logic" as the basis of any of your arguments or criticism.
(2) Next, you DECLARE what an initiation of violence includes without respect to WHERE this definition comes from or making any kind of distinction between state or individual actors nor time, place, or manner. Nothing of notice, legality, lenity, or social contract. It's nothing but a statement with all the depth and accuracy of "Guns only kill." This misunderstanding of law disqualifies you from using "law" (as you mistakenly perceive it, opposed to what it actually is) as the basis of any of our arguments or criticism.
(3) Finally, after a long windup that is intellectually dishonest at worst, faulty analysis at best- but most likely evidence of a lack of critical comprehension as to law, logic, and language- you jump to the only potentially substantive question whose potential is stolen by a lack of ANY substantive parameters... because, and this was INTENTIONALLY intellectually dishonest, you think your question is rhetorical and self-evident. You ask, snidely, for a justification for regulation. That's easy! Justifications are easy, rationalizations are easy. What you meant to say was a justification that you and you alone will accept, while thinking to yourself, "Hah, none!" A conclusion reached before the proof was ever laid out is a far cry from logic (except for your fraudulent brand).
This hubris and intoxication of your own self-importance is embarrassing! Who CARES whether you think a justification for a regulation is reasonable? NO ONE DOES. What's relevant in a nation of laws is whether there can be sufficient consensus consistent with the social contract, to persuade enforcement, and for people to accept and largely abide by such enforcement. If you alone refused to accept a justification that everyone else adopts, not only are you out of the boundaries of positive law, likely you missed the mark on the natural one too unless you deem yourself the infallible source of natural law- not sourced from God Almighty but you putting yourself in his stead.
Logic is dispassionate and has no affiliation with your views (or mine for that matter, only to the extent that I actually understand what it is). The law, despite its fusion with politics, is similarly dispassionate as it is meant to provide a language with which to speak across ideological barriers and build social consensus apart from purely individual notions of natural law. It's why DC will have to abide by the Heller decision despite individual disagreement, because the law of it is sound.
Hijacking "logic" and "law" the way you do is the same as criticisms against "assault weapons" or "high capacity handguns" founded on arguments with little to no comprehension of the subject at hand.
Sans Authoritas
member
- Joined
- Jan 12, 2008
- Messages
- 1,126
It is not logically provable that a man has no right to initiate violence against another man? If you walked up to someone who was doing nothing but reading a book and punched him, and he objected, the most you could do would be to say, "Use logic to prove my action wasn't reasonable?"
Are you saying man can justly (outside of what the 'law' considers just: e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, torture) initiate violence against other men? Using logic, how can you defend such a position?
-Sans Authoritas
Are you saying man can justly (outside of what the 'law' considers just: e.g. slavery, Jim Crow, torture) initiate violence against other men? Using logic, how can you defend such a position?
-Sans Authoritas
Last edited:
Say Sans, you still haven't responded to the questions I raised in post 89, specifically:
"And if you think that your approach can yield change, pray tell us who other than your buddies on the Internet (and perhaps at your local gun range) is paying positive attention to your ideas. What have you actually accomplished in the real world?"
"And if you think that your approach can yield change, pray tell us who other than your buddies on the Internet (and perhaps at your local gun range) is paying positive attention to your ideas. What have you actually accomplished in the real world?"
- Status
