Guns and governing philosophy, Part 1

Cal Beverly's picture

Mention the word, and the walls go up, the blood-red line gets drawn in the sand: Guns.

Since these pages have seen lots of rhetorical ammunition expended in recent months about the issue of gun control, I decided to waste a little more ink and space to try some logical thinking instead of emitting emotions.

Here we must honestly agree on some basic premises, or the communications have ended, like a yes-no decision tree.

Our Declaration of Independence contains this famous sentence:

“We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.”

We will return in a moment to pick up the sentence fragments that follow that first famous line.

Our Founders went to bloody war using guns to kill people who looked just like themselves in order to establish that basic premise: Each individual human possesses rights that are not conferred — indeed, are not conferrable — by any other person, group, or government.

Premise One: To say it in a contemporary way, rights are not created by governments, whether run by Democrats or Republicans. Rights come before governments, before laws. According to our founding American document, there is no chicken or egg argument here.

If you cannot agree with that basic principle, you should peel off from this discussion: We have no common ground.

Now those un-famous sentence fragments, each beginning with a “that” and meant to be understood in connection with the first clause, “We hold these truths to be self-evident ...”:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Now those words truly are revolutionary.

To say it another way, people agree to form a government so that these “self-evident” individual rights might be “secure,” safe not just from individual lawless thieves and murderers, but also from organized groups of thieves and murderers.

Premise Two: Our Founders thus give us the American philosophy of government — Rights are paramount, above every other principle and before all laws, and governments that try to take away those rights deserve to be changed or abolished.

Again, if you can’t agree with that foundational principle of the American revolution, you should peel off. We have no common ground and the concept of “guns” will remain to you an incoherent morass of emotion, devoid of reason.

Premise Three: Inherent in that right of “Life,” as annunciated by Thomas Jefferson, is the right of self-defense. If one cannot defend oneself from the taking of one’s life, then no other rights have any substantive meaning.

If you think that you or I have no inherent “Right” of self-defense against those who would kill us or enslave us, then you also should peel off. Our conversation is over.

Let’s see who remains:

1. A small but fervent group of self-described Second Amendment absolutists who might be surprised to learn they share at least one belief attributed to Chairman Mao Tse-Tung: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” (No aspersions intended.) Group 1, thy name is “Cold Dead Hands.”

2. A much larger group that says, “Yes, but ...” These are the “degree” people: “A six-shooter is okay, but I draw the line at 10-round magazines.” Group 2, thy name is “Arbitrary Buts (just one “t”).”

3. A group of unknown size with two subsets. Subset A says, in effect, “That was then, this is now. What may have been valid in 1776 (or 1789 or when the amendment was adopted) is no longer valid in 2013. Times have changed and we must change with the times.” Subset B says, “The Second Amendment doesn’t say what you think it says. It actually limits gun rights to National Guard units and is not applicable to individuals.” Group 3, both subsets, thy name is “Living Constitution.”

Have I missed anybody?

You’ll let me know, won’t you? We’ll all be civil, right?

In Part Two, I’ll do some more fingernail scratching on the blackboard for all three groups.

[Cal Beverly is editor and publisher of The Citizen.]

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - Outcomes

Outcomes are predictable when you know the philosophy of socialism. As a socialist you take property by force because socialism cannot exist without force. Socialism dictates and justifies theft in the name of the masses or the state and neither the masses or the state has the right to an individual's property. It is in fact a theft of Life, Liberty and Property.

So, your position is indefensible Rolling, no matter how you spin it.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: that's a wrap

My position is independent of yours and its conclusions. Insinuating that I am a thief is as bogus as your logic.

Ciao

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - No

If you're a socialist, which I believe you are, by definition you are a thief. You haven't given a good explanation of the flaws in my logic or philosophy. Until you do.....well I am afraid that your entire argument is flawed and without merit. You can't admit that your logic is flawed because it would expose your philosophy for what it is, corrupt.

BTW, I am not angry with you or anything, really. There are many like you, you simply haven't thought much about the basis of your thinking and beliefs. I don't expect you to change the way you think, after all it's what you have been taught. It does however always amaze me that smart people can't think through their philosophies without seeing flaws in them. That's why I would welcome your thoughts on where you believe the logic of my philosophy is flawed. I certainly see many flaws in yours.

Most socialists attack the the basis of my philosophy's premise that we have God given rights or Natural Rights. Typically, the best way of doing this is to attack the notion that there is a God. This is why for the most part socialist societies attempt to drive out God and replace God with the State as the all powerful entity in our lives. You know, as Mr.Obama said, those of us that "cling to our God and guns" are the real problem in our society. You may want to re-read George Orwell's "1984" as one of the better illustrations of this concept.

I suppose the subject of guns is where this exchange started, but we never got back to it. However, where I was going is that as long as we own our life, then we have a right to defend it and by extension our property as part of our life. To the extent the state wants to deprive us of our ability to protect our lives then the state is corrupted from it original purpose. Actually, our Republic was established to promote the protection of our rights, not take them away.

I look forward to future exchanges with you.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
PTCO... Stone has many beliefs and convictions..

..He/She was raised under Government, most likely use Government in their life, educated by Government and believes in Government.

He like many other little (s)ocialist doesn't even realize what we have lost through their Philosophy and lack of, well education, of America and what made us the richest Country in the World even though we are the youngest Country in the World.

I have followed your "conversation" with him and watch as he struggled to formulate a coherent response while he tried to solidify and then communicate what he believes.

When the final inevitable and predicable "Well we will just have to agree to disagree" response came I was somewhat shocked it actually took that long to come out. He doesn't understand what Socialism is. Most don't. Oh they can look up a definition but they can't translate that into thought or action.

To them the "State" has ALWAYS been there, always used and it's power has never been questioned. They just assume that the "State" has the power to do these things and shall not be questioned.

This was why he never answered my post on Natural Right of Self-Defense and threat levels. The "State" is suppose to do that...that's why we have Police and the Military after all.

Just wanted to say I enjoyed the deconstruction of Stone's argument and the flailing around as he tried to pull together answers.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer and S. Lindsey:

I am beginning to suspect that you two actually believe the stuff that you write. Curiouser and curiouser.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Are you saying you don't?

So the opinions you offer here is just so much BS?

Hmmm... that actually explains a lot.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - I can't

speak for Lindsey, but "believe" in what I write? Absolutely, I believe what I write, the philosophy of individual liberty as been well developed since the early 15th Century. The culmination, inclusively known as the Charters of Freedom, you may want to review them.

On the other hand, Socialism in its current form began in the mid-19th Century and with the Marx thesis of Das Capital in 1846-9. Since 1849, mankind has suffered with Marx's philosophy of theft and millions of lives have been given to this false god. You merely need to look at the recent past with the rise of National Socialism and the Nazi party, the Soviet Union, China, North Korea, the People's Republic of Kampuchea, Socialist Republic of Vietnam, the Union Solidarity and Development Party (Burma), the Socialist Republic of Cuba, etc.

You have a brief but exceptional period of the socialist experiment to draw from Rolling, your thinking drawn to its logical conclusion has plenty of examples. While I have no doubt that your philosophy stems from your desire to help others in the general positivist philosophy of Auguste Comte, the outcome is the same. Tyranny always starts with the ideal of good intentions and the "general welfare", but you know what they say about the road to hell. There are numerous examples of a socialist hell Rolling but only one example under individual freedom, an improvement in mankind's wealth and well being.

You are worshiping a false god Rolling.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
Guns

It's a religious argument. Those who approach it with rational thought will usually lose out to the illogical masses.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
Cal knows his audience

I anticipate a conservative amount of conservative bashing and a liberal amount of liberal bashing. I admit to saying "that was then, this is now" but rather than assuming that I meant that what was said in 1789 is no longer valid a more accurate statement would be that it is still valid however more validity is now needed. Cal, I would like to have my own subset please. Regarding the name of group 3, "Living Constitution", my feeling is best compared to another fictional character, Huckleberry Finn, after he found out that Moses lived a long time prior: ...so then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't take no stock in dead people.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - Definition

ox·y·mo·ron
/ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/
Noun
A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true).

Or

Still valid but more validity is now needed.

Truth is not time dependent, a simple concept that you appear unable to grasp

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: Still valid after all these years

In 1789 guns were legal to own by individuals for their protection. In 2013 guns are legal to own by individuals for their protection. Individuals owning guns for protection was and still is valid. In 1789 all but the most rudimentary regulations and restrictions had no practical applications and were not part of the considerations and conclusions. In 2013 regulations and restrictions on types and usage do have practical applications, made necessary by changes in the guns and changes in their use, requiring additional considerations. The conclusions for gun ownership in 2013 are built on the validity of 1789 that needs to be augmented to allow for the additional valid reasons that exist in 2013. That's my reasoning and I am sticking to it.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: opinions

The concept of valid does not constitute an absolute value. An understanding can be valid, and that understanding with additional valid information taken into account would have more validity.

Truth is not locked away in the past, in fact it only exists in the here and now, a simple concept that you appear unable to grasp.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - now

Now you're talking, you are exactly right. It exists in the here and now, just like it did at the dawn of mankind. Truth is also valid today as it was at our founding. What of universal truth Rolling?

How about that we own our lives? That's a universal truth, don't you think?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: by golly

We are getting somewhere. We are alive only in the moment called now and it is ours. The truth is no different now then it was in the beginning.

The problem is: when humans get hold of the truth, it is not the truth any longer.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
But Rolling

You didn't answer the question.

Do you agree that a universal truth is that we own our lives?

That no one else owns us as individuals?

Is this not a universal truth? That this is only dependent on the life span of the individual?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: from my scribe, I. R. Agreeable
Quote:

Do you agree that a universal truth is that we own our lives?

That no one else owns us as individuals?

Is this not a universal truth?

That this is only dependent on the life span of the individual?

Responses: Yes, yes, no, and yes.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - no??

I assume that you mean that someone can forcibly "own" you?

So, you conclude, wrongly, that it is not a universal truth?

So, this is the reason you answered no?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer - it was the nature of the question

Answering yes to that question would affirm "this is not a universal truth", so my answer "no" denied that "this is not a universal truth".

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - OK

Got it.

Now, if you believe that it is a universal truth that we all own our lives, then do you believe that it is also true that our time is limited, therefore this time is valuable to us? I assume you would agree to this.

If so, then our labor is a conversion of our lives and the output of our labor is our property. Therefore, property is ours to own as it is part of our life. Property by rational extension is the accumulation and output of our life and our life is ours to own and no one else.

Do you believe this is also true?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: OK, part II
Quote:

Do you believe this is also true?

Without getting too wrapped up in semantics, sure.

Now I have to let you know that regardless of where this is headed, I do not think it is OK for me to shoot someone with a gun for taking my lawnmower.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - I

agree with you, but that's a qualified "agree", as always it depends on the circumstances.

I am happy that unlike many people you are not getting cloaked in semantics, as this is a usual tactic to avoid truth.

So, so far we have established that you believe it's truth that:

1. We all own our lives individually.
2. That our lives are limited and therefore valuable to us.
3. That our labor is part of our lives.
4. That the output of our labor is property.
5. Ergo, property is equal to our lives.

Now, another universal truth is that we are all born free, that no person has the right to enslave us. I think you're reasonable and would assume you agree with this?

6. We are born free but freedom doesn't mean we have the freedom to deprive others of their life. It is not ours to take by force.
7. No person has the "right" to deprive us of our life?
8. No person has the "right" to take by force our life?
and therefore,
9. Because we have already agreed that property is part of our life (it is our life) that no person has the "right" to take our property by force?
10. That because no individual has this right, no group of individuals have this right.
11. That individuals that don't have this right cannot collectively extend a right they don't have to another, they cannot elect and individual to take property, because they don't have the right to do this as individuals.

Let's stop there and see if you are ok with these points based on the very first universal truth.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: my opinions

#1 through 4, fine.

#5 is not a valid equality that is a consequence of #1 through 4.

#6 OK

#7 OK

#8 OK

#9 has the invalidity of #5 to deal with, resulting in #10 having the difficulty of #9's issue, resulting in #11 having the same flight status as the 787 Dreamliner.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - OK

Please explain your rationale on your conclusion to #5. How is property not a outcome of life? Work? and Freedom? How do you think these are not equal?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer - OK part III

Life is a combination of what was, is, and will be with that which wasn't, is, and wouldn't be; property only has the latter attributes.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - Attributes

The attributes of past, current and future as it pertains to life are true. However, property is a product of our past life, life is limited, therefore property is as much a part of our life as the present. It is the content and the result of our life and it has value because it is limited by our life's work, abilities and talents. The future is unknown as it hasn't happened yet.

You still agree that we own our life and no one else?

So, maybe you can actually give a rationale for your rejection of #5? Your argument should have some logical process tied to it, not declaratory statements without a fundamental basis.

I believe that the only way for you to argue that property is not a product of our lives and they are equivalent would be to reject that 1) we own our life or 2) we are free; or 3) our work is not ours.

To argue against any one of these truths would to suggest that we are slaves to someone or something else.

Thoughts?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer: thoughts on my opinions

I explained to my satisfaction why your equation was not valid. I suppose we will have to disagree on what we disagree about.

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Rolling - Just

as I imagined the outcome of this little exchange. It is so with all liberal minded philosophers, to deny fundamental truth.

It's the basis of the plunder mentality, force.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
PTC Observer - OK part IV
Quote:

It is so with all liberal minded philosophers, to deny fundamental truth.
It's the basis of the plunder mentality, force.

I believe this is the outcome that you had planned from the beginning and your construction was an example of reverse engineering. That's OK, I needed the exercise.

MajorMike
MajorMike's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/20/2005
rolling stone - truth

Well Kevin, That depends on what you're definition of "is" is. History, or truth, has always been defined by the victor.

I really think that "We hold these truth's to be self evident" is timeless and applies to all generations.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
MajorMike: a clarification

This is not Kevin.

Quote:

I really think that "We hold these truth's to be self evident" is timeless and applies to all generations.

What is timeless exists in the present, all else is either in the past or in the future.

Truth was at one time that stone tools were all that were available and someones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were quite dependent on them. Now, not so much.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Stone and arguments...

Stone.. While going about my day I got to thinking on what you said about God Given Rights.
Let’s forget about that whole “That was then this is now” statement for a minute and focus on this:

Stone wrote:

As an explanation, interrupt “god-given” as what you are born with, and to date, no baby has been born holding a gun

First one can assume from this statement that you are in the “God is a myth” crowd.. That’s OK got no problem with that. However rather you believe our Rights come from God or not is irrelevant.

We have a Natural Right of self-defense. We see this in Nature. A Mother Bear will protect her Cubs no matter the intent of the Animal or Person is.
She will attack to defend not only her Cubs but herself.

This is a Natural Right of self-defense.

We have this right no matter what you or the Government decides. Rather it was Gaia or God Nature made us with an instinct of self-preservation.

With that being said if all things where equal and no guns existed anywhere in the World then you would be correct in your argument of “That was then and this is now”. We would not need a level of protection far superior then what the threat level against us actually is.

This is the basic flaw in your argument.

Your argument is that we/citizens don’t need to own “Assault” styled weapons nor do we need 30 round mags. Again if we did not face that threat level your argument would be valid. But by trying to lower our defensive capabilities while doing nothing to lower the threat level you are in essence trying to negate our Natural Right of self-Defense.

So here is the crux of the issue..

1. Do I have the “Right” to meet aggression with aggression and do I have the “Right” to meet force with force?
2. Do I have the “Right” to have the same defensive capabilities as the threat level that exists?
3. In other words if a Criminal enters my home with a “Assault” weapon with a 30 round mag do I not have the “Right” to meet that Criminal with at least the same level of force?

Can you guarantee that this scenario will never happen? Can the Government guarantee this will never happen? If not and you can’t, then what you and other Gun Control advocates are doing is attempting to change our Natural Rights without regard to threat levels we may face. You ignore that there are somewhere more than 200 Million guns already in existence and approx 80 million of those are “Assault” styled as it is called, although these type of weapons are actually only used in less than 2% of homicides…but the threat exist.

Stone this is why you are committing a logical fallacy by thinking that removing “Assault” weapons and hi-cap mags this will somehow make people safer and lower the threat level enough to negate the need for self-defense.

You nor the Government can do that.

Remember if you believe, and I think you do, that your “Rights” are given to you by Man or Government… What is given to you can also be taken away.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL
Quote:

Again if we did not face that threat level your argument would be valid.

Please tell us the threat level that makes it valid to have automatic assault weapon with above 10 bullet capacity in our private home. Thanks.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Dm all you had to do was read the dang post...

...Can you or Obama guarantee my families safety by removing my AR-15 with it's 30 round mag? Can you guarantee that my family will never face such a weapon?

NO you cannot...so why do you and those like you want to disarm law-abiding citizens that give us a fighting chance?

btw- DM get the terminology correct please... Unless you have a Class III license you do NOT have a AUTOMATIC Assault Weapon. This is the problem with you guys... You don't even know what you are trying to ban.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

The threat level that you fear?

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

A Burglar or (s) entering my house with a AK47 can you or this ban guarantee that will not happen?

If you can't and you can't then you are lowing my defensive capability without decreasing the Threat level. Thus you and this ban is placing my family in danger.

Can you or this ban protect my family in the event of a Natural disaster or a bio attack or pandemic?

No?

Then you and this ban are therefore placing my family at risk. A risk I will not accept.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL - you are 100% correct!
Quote:

A Burglar or (s) entering my house with a AK47 can you or this ban guarantee that will not happen?

You are so right! Can you guarantee that not banning it will? The operative word, guarantee. Mr. Garlock has clarified, without denigrating, the nomenclature regarding guns. I feel very safe here in Fayette County. I feel the steps my neighbors and I have taken, with the guidance of local law enforcement helps me to live in peace. Sorry you are haunted by the vision of humans breaking into your home with AK47's. Keep yours loaded and by your side! Peace.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Logical Fallacies and Arguments
DM wrote:

Can you guarantee that not banning it will

YES.. with all things being equal...at least for the next 100 years.

Banning without confiscation will do nothing about the guns already in the hands of Criminals and if you add confiscation Criminals by their very nature will not comply. So it will achieve exactly nothing except to disarm the LAW-ABIDING Citizenry and remove the threat of a armed home owner.

This is where you, stone and the other gun control crowds make the logical fallacy that by banning guns from law-abiding citizens will somehow make everyone safer. It is not the CCP or AR-15 owner that is the problem it is the Criminal and the Criminally Insane among us.

Remember DM we do not have Asylums anymore to house the Insane/disturbed.. Why because Liberals like you said it was inhumane.

So you fixed a perceived problem and created another one.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Agree: no confiscation

Disagree: Guarantee anything for the next 100 years. If you can, you should advertise as a financial investor!

Disagree: No one here has stated that banning guns from law-abiding citizens will make everyone safe. . Unless I missed that post. Please share.

Disagree: you know nothing about all 'liberal' thought, in particular my thought on treatment for the mentally ill.

An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion.[1] The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in reasoning that render the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not merely a flaw in logic.
Contents [show]
[edit]Formal deductive fallacies and informal fallacies
Formal fallacies of deductive reasoning fail to follow the rules of logic that guarantee a true conclusion follows given the truth of the premises. This is said to render the argument invalid.
Inductive fallacies are not formal in this sense. Their merit is judged in terms of rational persuasiveness, inductive strength or methodology (for example, statistical inference). For instance, the fallacy of hasty generalization, can be roughly stated as an invalid syllogism:
A is an X
A is also a Y
Therefore, all Xs are also Ys
While never a valid deduction, if such an inference can made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing.

[edit]

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM you do have a reading disability...

...or a comprehension issue..One or the other... Now think for a minute where that ..er went to.

You originally said..

DM wrote:

Can you guarantee that not banning it will

I said..

S.Lindsey wrote:

YES.. with all things being equal...at least for the next 100 years.

You said:

Dm wrote:

Disagree: Guarantee anything for the next 100 years. If you can, you should advertise as a financial investor!

Note I said "with all things being equal"..There are enough guns in America for at least 100 years DM banning them like Diane Frankenstien wants to do to "draw down the supply" will have no effect. Guns are not like cars. They don't wear out..and can be easily rebuilt when parts fail.. A simple machine shop can fabricate most any part.

S. Lindsey wrote:

This is where you, stone and the other gun control crowds make the logical fallacy that by banning guns from law-abiding citizens will somehow make everyone safer.

You responded with:

DM wrote:

Disagree: No one here has stated that banning guns from law-abiding citizens will make everyone safe. . Unless I missed that post. Please share.

Where did the ..er go DM? Everyone from the President on down is pushing that the ban will keep us safer. When in fact it will do no such thing. Crime will not go down in fact it has been shown that where guns are banned from private ownership violent crimes rises. So will a gun ban make us safer...not by a long shot.

Dm wrote:

Disagree: you know nothing about all 'liberal' thought, in particular my thought on treatment for the mentally ill.

Off on a tangent rant aren't we DM? Look up "deinstitutionalization" and see who has shut down the the State Institutions?

"Ideally, deinstitutionalization represents more humane and liberal treatment of mental illness in community-based settings. Pragmatically, it represents a change in the scope of mental health care from longer, custodial inpatient care to shorter outpatient care.

The process of deinstitutionalization, combined with the scarcity of community-based care, is also associated with the visible problems of homelessness . Between 30-50% of homeless people in the United States are people with mental illness, and people with mental illness are disproportionate among the homeless.

Facts are facts DM...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Reagan in California - SL

Disinstitutionlized the treatment of mental illness . Fact: I do not have a reading disability. My opinion: you are a very insecure human being. Have a great day. ( and look at the possibility of ' all being equal' to base a premise.). And as many others are asking - where are Obama and Feinstein asking to ban ALL WEAPONS? The Senator, like many women in California - 'carries'!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
First insults then drama... Great entertainment for a Saturday..

Dm you are if nothing else... entertaining.

If you can't back up your arguments DM why make them?

btw-Frankenstien does not carry anymore she gave up her permit... Sort of a hypocrite to try and ban almost all guns while carrying herself.. but then again most Libs are very good at telling the masses what's good for them while exempting themselves from it... http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/dianne-feinstein-gun-lis...

Insecure??? I thought I was a uneducated rightwing religious bigoted homophobe?

Who knew I was just insecure...

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL

Not my words - yours.

Quote:

Insecure??? I thought I was a uneducated rightwing religious bigoted homophobe?

Not at bad job at self-identification.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

Have a good night there Dm....

The Wedge
The Wedge's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/09/2008
DM the confluence of events

that draws the following threads together: a US military increasingly being prepped with leaders being tested and evaluated on their willingness to raise arms and use force on US citizens in US borders, an increasing desire to set up "national registries" of firearms and to set up scenarios of confiscation of firearms if "voluntary turn ins" are made with currently legal firearms, and the "salami-tactics" of a national government paramount-minded citizens who want to incrementally eliminate firearms possession in private citizen hands. So in this confluence, the obvious threat level would be when a federalized force such a squad of soldiers is using registry lists to confiscate property from private homes. In such a situation, having automatic weapons would be the only way to "level" the field so to speak. You would discount this scenario but you would be historically naive to do so.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Wedge - Who Do You Fear?
Quote:

a US military increasingly being prepped with leaders being tested and evaluated on their willingness to raise arms and use force on US citizens in US borders

Who are these military leaders? Who are these 'citizens' who they would be willing to 'turn on'? The scenario that comes to mind is the use of the national guard during the Civil Rights movement and the military brought in after Katrina. In both cases, they were protecting those citizens who were in danger. Has the job of the Guard/ military changed? Who do you fear? Are there organizations that you know of who would turn on law abiding citizens? Wouldn't the military/ Guard protect the law abiding citizen and their 'rights' as they have done in the past?

Are you suggesting that there is a group of assault weapon owners who are prepared to take on our National Guard and/or military if the military appears to want to enforce something you disagree with? Hummmmm - brings back some ugly memories. Makes me even more supportive of banning assault weapons in private ownership. Scary stuff to hear and/or imagine. I'm sure you will correct my imagined fears .

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
DM: U ever lived in New Orleans?

You want to know who would turn on US/City residents without any hesitation? The New Orleans PD would gladly step up and show you, though their numbers shrank when a chunk of them fled the city after Katrina instead of doing their jobs.

It's funny how the LAPD gets a lot of media attention and the true brutality and complete corruption has been in New Orleans for decades in regards to their thug police force. Just because they can pull-off Super Bowls, Sugar Bowls and Mardi Gras as well as direct traffic better than any police force on the planet that I've seen doesn't mean a lot when it comes to the day-to-day policing and utter sickness there.

New Orleans is truly a place where, yes, you may need to own firearms to protect yourself from law enforcement. Of course, the rest of the cesspool living there is another reason, but that's why I live here and not there.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Nuk

Are you for real? What would happen to a 'homeowner' who turned his automatic weapon on 'law enforcement? I grew up in Los Angeles. Left in 1961. You are unrealistically paranoid - but certainly entitled to your opinions and perceptions. IMO. Some remaining law enforcement from New Orleans were recently convicted of murder which occurred in the aftermath of Katrina. The arrival of the Guard/military stopped the lawlessness, not individual homeowners with automatic weapons. I returned to LA in 1963, lived through the '65 riot. Again, it was military who stabilized the area. I have a fear of 'secret' militias re-enforcing practices that are considered 'illegal' . But of course, Wedge is the one who may answer my question.

My fear is of extremist hate groups which are all over our country. They are exercising their freedom of speech right on their websites. Scary stuff if they are armed. Just sharing my fear.

Copper42
Copper42's picture
Offline
Joined: 02/01/2007
Automatic/Assault Weapons

Now we see the crux of the discussion. Uninformed individuals using media inspired false knowledge. Lets discuss the automatic issue first. An automatic weapon is a firearm that continues to fire with the press of the trigger ONE time. A semi-automatic weapon needs the trigger pressed each time a round is fired. Automatic weapons have been government controlled for years. When someone purchases the automatic (also known as a Class 3 firearm)weapon, they must meet SEVERAL criteria. The must apply to the BATF to receive permission to purchase the automatic firearm. Then they have to allow the Federal Government access to the weapon at any time. Please remove the thought of automatic weapon with assault weapon.
Next on the list is the dirty phrase, assault weapon. I got news for you folks, ANYTHING can be used as an assault weapon. If I poke you in the arm with a pencil, I just assaulted you with a weapon. The phrase is a bunch of media made up nonsense.
With regards to "high capacity magazines". Wether I have one thirty round magazine, or 5 six round magazines, or any combination, any person can be taught how to reload quick enough the time span between reloads is minor.
It was mentioned about meeting force with force. Nice common way of thinking. It matches the states definition. If someone punches you, you have the right to punch them back. If they shoot at you, shot at them.
If people would just learn to use the ever fading ability of common sense. It's not the law abiding citizen we worry about. It's the criminal element. The laws on the books are not being used. The same liberal individuals that want to ban guns, are the same ones that want lesser sentences for criminals comitting crimes with guns. Try enforcing the laws already in existence before throwing more out there.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Agreement-copper42

There is more agreement than disagreement regarding the Second Amendment. I have used my Second Amendment right to carry when necessary. I have worked in areas where it was known that illegal assault weapons were in the neighborhood. At one time in LA criminals had assault weapons that 'outclassed' the weapons carried by the officer on the street. There are Common Sense solutions to the problem of gun violence in America. The current proposals do not call for the confiscation of all guns in this country. I'm with the group who approve the background check; special permission for owning military automatic assault weapons ; limited capacity magazines and an easier path for getting help for the mentally ill. Most Americans do use common sense. Most Americans are law abiding.

Mrs. Gifford is alive because her perpetrator was stopped while reloading.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Copper42 welcome to Bizarro World

Where facts matter little and emotion is king.

Cyclist
Cyclist's picture
Offline
Joined: 05/15/2007
DM Extremist Groups - Really!!!!

The homicide rate of some inner cities is off the chart and you're worried about extremist groups.

Joe Kawfi
Joe Kawfi's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/20/2009
Extremist Groups

The only extremist groups in the U.S. that have made the news recently have been the black panthers voter intimidation tactics that were caught on tape. Of course the racist narcissist president and his cohort in crime holder refused to prosecute them.

The bottom line is that obama and the democrats in congress can't be trusted. They lie to our faces almost on a daily basis. They say that you have second ammendment rights, but it's all about power for them. They would just as soon remove all the guns from law abiding citizen hands and so only the thugs and criminals that make up the obama base have them. It would be their version of 'justice' for past wrongs of a previous generation.

obama said he would halve the deficit and he tripled it . he lied. he said he would close guantamano. he lied. he said that he wouldn't raise taxes. he lied. he said that his health care mandate would save money. he lied.

obama is a liar and only cares about getting more power over Americans. When he says something, believe the opposite.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Cyclist

The extremist groups don't have the nerve to go into inner city. They're comfortable threatening what they call uppity citizens.
You don't have to worry about black on black crime or the ignorant extremist. The crime stats in Newtown weren't high - remember? I remember dogs and screaming 'students'. Thank heavens for the military - the law enforcement was sadly lacking. We all 'see' based on our own experience. I understand yours, don't dismiss mine. Take a look at some of the websites. I do fear the not so secret militias. I have faith in those who serve in the military based on their actions in recent crisis.

SPQR
SPQR's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/15/2007
DM

To some degree we all have baggage that keeps us from thinking objectively. Do you think you may share that problem with so many others?

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SPQR

Most definitely! And until we all share the basis of our opinions, it is difficult for others to understand our thinking. I find that those who have never had some of my experiences can't begin to understand why I feel as I do - and vice versa. I have learned that one who never had their citizenship or 'rights' questioned usually has no idea how degrading that experience can be. I have also been led to understand how the sharing of power with those that have been identified as unworthy is difficult for some. What is even more baggage in this country is that often 'worthiness' has been tied to skin color/gender. Objectivity is often in the eye of the beholder.

NUK_1
NUK_1's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/17/2007
DM: I understand

You are talking about the brutality of the LAPD during the civil rights era and I'm not minimizing that whatsoever. I didn't grow up there. I know New Orleans PD and what they have done post-1960's in the 1970's and 80's and 90's.

I think there's been a lot more reform in the LAPD than the NOPD as it relates to right now. NOPD is not only corrupt but also a bunch of wanna-be thugs that enjoy beating the hell out of people. I was never a victim of that but know plenty who were and have witnessed it first-hand along with the subsequent cover-ups.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
Nuk

So there are enough assault weapon owners in New Orleans to effectively protect themselves from a dysfunctional law enforcement? Are they organized into an ' other militia'? Interesting. I'm grateful that I don't live in an area where there are nightly drive-bys. I rely on my alarm system, my semi-automatic, my neighbors and law enforcement. Unfortunately, me and my family are targets of sick extremists in this country according to their not so secret websites - so I do remain vigilant. Sad commentary on the land of the free and the brave. Fayette County has come a long way - and again, I celebrate that!

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
The Wedge: we really have nothing to fear but fear itself
Quote:

So in this confluence, the obvious threat level would be when a federalized force such a squad of soldiers is using registry lists to confiscate property from private homes. In such a situation, having automatic weapons would be the only way to "level" the field so to speak. You would discount this scenario but you would be historically naive to do so.

Should this scenario ever come to pass I believe the reality would be that the vast majority of the civilian owned weapons be used to keep their owners company while they are hiding under their beds. The real deals would be vastly outnumbered.

Davids mom
Davids mom's picture
Offline
Joined: 10/30/2005
SL
Quote:

First one can assume from

You know what they call those who ASSume!

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
DM

I have made a lot of ASSumptions about you.. I find them mostly all correct.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
***chuckle***
Stone wrote:

I admit to saying "that was then, this is now" but rather than assuming that I meant that what was said in 1789 is no longer valid a more accurate statement would be that it is still valid however more validity is now needed.

Do you have a beeper for that reverse?

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S. Lindsey: ????

What I said:

Quote:

That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future. I have no problem with gun ownership but it is delusional to think that guns are any sort of talisman and that restrictions based on common sense take away "god given" rights

As an explanation, I interrupt "god-given" as what you are born with, and to date, no baby has been born holding a gun.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Ahh context is everything Stone...

What I said...

S. Lindsey wrote:

"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "

in reference to rather the Founders meant Militia's mean standing Army or Civilians while responding to PTCO
http://thecitizen.com/blogs/terry-garlock/01-08-2013/gun-control-ignoran...

What you responded with....

rolling stone wrote:

That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future. I have no problem with gun ownership but it is delusional to think that guns are any sort of talisman and that restrictions based on common sense take away "god given" rights.

We all know what you meant there Stone to keep trying to say "No I didn't say that" or "I meant something different then what you read" is a little "spineless". You wrote it we read it and it was very clear what you intended. Now you may have re-thought that statement and NOW believe differently... that's OK we all have those moments.

rolling stone wrote:

As an explanation, I interrupt "god-given" as what you are born with, and to date, no baby has been born holding a gun.

Really God Given rights is what you are born with and no baby is born with a gun... That is your explanation NOW???

Dude you have more definitions then a Webster's Dictionary.

rolling stone
rolling stone's picture
Offline
Joined: 07/08/2012
S.Lindsey: nice try
Quote:

We all know what you meant there Stone

So S. Lindsey is plural?

Quote:

You wrote it we read it and it was very clear what you intended

It does not appear that much of anything was absorbed. Hubris does not empower one to assign meanings as one sees fit.

Your derogatory manners are yours to keep.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
***POOF**** there stone

Dust in the wind...

PTC Observer
PTC Observer's picture
Offline
Joined: 04/23/2007
Mr. Beverly - Facts

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

Thank you for your lucid missive, I am looking forward to your next installment.

S. Lindsey
S. Lindsey's picture
Offline
Joined: 12/31/2008
Now you done gone and done it Cal

you used logic.

The antithesis of the Gun Control crowd.

Recent Comments