Miscellaneous News.

12223252728143

Comments

  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Of course I support the Constitution. Which is why I strongly support a movement toward an amendment to modify or repeal the Second Amendment, among other things.



    Nevermind. That statement is about as far from Libertarian as you can get.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Nevermind. That statement is about as far from Libertarian as you can get.



    Indeed. It also betrays a rather frightening underlying philosophy. It would appear as if tonton thinks that government give people their rights. This is a dangerous position.



    NOTE: It also indicates a complete ignorance of (or disregard for) the 9th amendment:



    Quote:

    The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.



    Or, perhaps, that amendment doesn't indicate that the people have as many rights as I think it does.





    An eloquently letter written to the Washington Post:



    Quote:

    Enjoying an uproariously good time poking fun at the Tea Party, Richard Cohen helpfully explains that its adherents’ insistence on strict interpretation of the Constitution is the result of a “fatuous infatuation” with that document – is the consequence of a yokel-like refusal to recognize that the Constitution is valuable “only because it has been wisely adapted to changing times. To adhere to the very word of its every clause hardly is respectful to the Founding Fathers” (“Republicans under a spell,” Sept. 21).



    Question for Mr. Cohen: if government officials and the courts are free to choose which words of the Constitution to “adhere to” and which to ignore, what meaning does the Constitution really possess? And why did the Founding Fathers struggle so hard during the long, hot summer of 1787 over the precise wording of the Constitution? Why didn’t they – to ensure that they would win the respect of future generations of Very Smart Persons – simply draft a document that reads “Government may do whatever it judges to be best for The People” and leave it at that?



    Sincerely,

    Donald J. Boudreaux





    I really can't figure out why so many people (liberals in particular, though certainly not exclusively) don't recognize the US constitution as a document intending to limit, constrain and hamper the power of the central government and, instead, appear to take the exact opposition interpretation, that it is a document that given the federal government wide, vast, expansive powers. All evidence goes against this interpretation. Strange.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Indeed. It also betrays a rather frightening underlying philosophy. It would appear as if tonton thinks that government give people their rights. This is a dangerous position.



    NOTE: It also indicates a complete ignorance of (or disregard for) the 9th amendment:



    Or, perhaps, that amendment doesn't indicate that the people have as many rights as I think it does.



    An eloquently letter written to the Washington Post:



    I really can't figure out why so many people (liberals in particular, though certainly not exclusively) don't recognize the US constitution as a document intending to limit, constrain and hamper the power of the central government and, instead, appear to take the exact opposition interpretation, that it is a document that given the federal government wide, vast, expansive powers. All evidence goes against this interpretation. Strange.



    I don't have the right to punch someone in the face. It harms others.



    Likewise, guns harm others far more than they help. Gun violence, as well as deaths due to violent crime, are lower in every single country that has proper gun control than they are in the US. The US would be a far safer place without guns. Without the 2nd Amendment, ownership of firearms is not an assumed right. How is modifying the Constitution to clear up an obsolete inclusion not part of the Constitutional ideal?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I don't have the right to punch someone in the face. It harms others.



    Yes. Thanks. What does this have to do with the 10th Amendment?!





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Likewise, guns harm others far more than they help.



    That's your opinion.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Without the 2nd Amendment, ownership of firearms is not an assumed right.



    You seem to be of the belief that the government grants you your rights. Am I correct?





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    How is modifying the Constitution to clear up an obsolete inclusion not part of the Constitutional ideal?



  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    I don't have the right to punch someone in the face. It harms others.



    Likewise, guns harm others far more than they help. Gun violence, as well as deaths due to violent crime, are lower in every single country that has proper gun control than they are in the US. The US would be a far safer place without guns. Without the 2nd Amendment, ownership of firearms is not an assumed right. How is modifying the Constitution to clear up an obsolete inclusion not part of the Constitutional ideal?



    Gun ownership harms nobody.



    Criminalizing gun ownership will have the same effect that criminalizing drugs has had.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post


    Criminalizing gun ownership will have the same effect that criminalizing drugs has had.



    Maybe worse.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    Yes. Thanks. What does this have to do with the 10th Amendment?!



    That's your opinion.



    You seem to be of the belief that the government grants you your rights. Am I correct?



    If you understood why I included the first example you would understand how my answer to your last question can be "no", yet I can still support gun control.



    And my "opinion" is supported by the fact that the US has higher gun violence and violent crime than any nation with proper gun control.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    If you understood why I included the first example you would understand how my answer to your last question can be "no",



    Yet you seem to be so logically inconsistent it forces me to ask clarifying questions.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    yet I can still support gun control.



    Not logically.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    And my "opinion" is supported by the fact that the US has higher gun violence and violent crime than any nation with proper gun control.



    Well, yes, if you take a very simplistic analysis.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Ok... how about this. If you commit a crime with a firearm, or a firearm that is registered to you is used in a crime (for whatever reason -- even if it was stolen from you, it was your responsibility) or if a firearm registered to you is involved in a fatal accident, you go to jail for life. Then I would support gun ownership.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Ok... how about this. If you commit a crime with a firearm, or a firearm that is registered to you is used in a crime (for whatever reason -- even if it was stolen from you, it was your responsibility) or if a firearm registered to you is involved in a fatal accident, you go to jail for life. Then I would support gun ownership.



    We'd have to break this down a bit and think about the potential problems it creates.



    Let's just take the very first one as an example: "If you commit a crime with a firearm...you go to jail for life"



    What kind of incentives do you think might be inadvertently created here and what might some of the consequences of that be?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    What kind of incentives do you think might be inadvertently created here and what might some of the consequences of that be?



    Yes, I understand where you're going with this. There may be a few desperate criminals who think they have nothing to lose. On the other hand, there will be countless more who will choose not to use a firearm. As for the former, they are self-eliminating.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    On the other hand, there will be countless more who will choose not to use a firearm.



    How do you know this? This sounds like wishful thinking. By what logic do you think this would happen? If someone would receive the same penalty either way, why wouldn't they simply kill their theft victim? I'd think the incentive would actually increase to do so.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    If someone would receive the same penalty either way, why wouldn't they simply kill their theft victim? I'd think the incentive would actually increase to do so.



    How do you know this? This sounds like wishful thinking. Care to address my second point?
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Let's break apart a couple more:



    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    If ... a firearm that is registered to you is used in a crime (for whatever reason -- even if it was stolen from you, it was your responsibility)



    This is quite odd reasoning. Should I also be held accountable for the murder of someone if someone steals a knife from my kitchen and uses it to murder someone? I mean I see where you're trying to go here...it's pretty transparent attempt to essentially outlaw the ownership of guns in a round about sort of way.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    if a firearm registered to you is involved in a fatal accident, you go to jail for life.



    So, again, this is terribly black and white. But then I see why you're doing it.
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    How do you know this? This sounds like wishful thinking.



    There are countries that have eliminated firearms, and their violent crime rate has been reduced dramatically. That's how I know it.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    There are countries that have eliminated firearms, and their violent crime rate has been reduced dramatically. That's how I know it.



    Have you considered whether you have a correlative but not causal relationship?



    Have you also considered that what you just said above is not the proposal I was asking you about?
  • tontontonton Posts: 14,063member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post


    This is quite odd reasoning. Should I also be held accountable for the murder of someone if someone steals a knife from my kitchen and uses it to murder someone



    Nope. It's far easier to defend a life against a knife than it is against a gun. And knives serve other purposes besides violence and threat of violence. (There are indeed knives like butterfly knives and switchblades that are designed for violence and threat of violence -- and guess what -- they're illegal.)



    And you hear it again and again. Gun owners are responsible. Gun safes. Out of the reach of children. Well, if they are so safe then what's to worry? Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.
  • mj1970mj1970 Posts: 9,002member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Nope. It's far easier to defend a life against a knife than it is against a gun.



    Oops. You're moving the goal posts (and you probably thought I wouldn't notice.)





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    And knives serve other purposes besides violence and threat of violence.



    As do guns.





    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    And you hear it again and again. Gun owners are responsible. Gun safes. Out of the reach of children. Well, if they are so safe then what's to worry? Put your money where your mouth is, or shut up.



    Well, if you want to twist this all around, I guess we cannot have a reasonable debate.
  • jazzgurujazzguru Posts: 6,435member
    From the Libertarian Party website:



    Quote:

    Guns are not the problem. They are inanimate objects. Gun control advocates talk as if guns could act on their own, as if human beings cannot control them, so the uncontrollable guns must be banished.



    Let us put the responsibility where it belongs, on the owner and user of the gun. If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace. But, if a person commits a crime with a gun, then impose the severest penalties for the injuries done to the victim. Similarly, hold the negligent gun user fully liable for all harm his negligence does to others.



    Rather than banning guns, the politicians and the police should encourage gun ownership, as well as education and training programs. A responsible, well-armed and trained citizenry is the best protection against domestic crime and the threat of foreign invasion. America's founders knew that. It is still true today.



    That middle paragraph sounds a lot like tonton's proposal.
  • john galtjohn galt Posts: 957member
    Quote:
    Originally Posted by tonton View Post


    Ok... how about this. If you commit a crime with a firearm, or a firearm that is registered to you is used in a crime (for whatever reason -- even if it was stolen from you, it was your responsibility) or if a firearm registered to you is involved in a fatal accident, you go to jail for life. Then I would support gun ownership.



    An "accident", fatal or not, isn't a crime. How would you like to go to jail for life if you were involved in a fatal car accident? Would it be different if the car were stolen from you? After all, the car is your responsibility, right? What if a child fell into your swimming pool and drowned? The swimming pool is your responsibility too, and anyone who's read Freakonomics knows swimming pools kill far more people than guns.



    It's a common misconception that guns must be "registered" - some municipalities require it though. Some, like DC and Chicago, made registration a requirement while another statute made the process effectively impossible. Fortunately, the Supreme Court struck down such statutes on Constitutional grounds.



    Some states (maybe most, I don't know) have a Constitutional provision that specifically prohibits such "registration".



    The right to own and use cars and swimming pools isn't even protected by the Constitution. Guns are.
Sign In or Register to comment.