or Connect
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Miscellaneous News. - Page 13

post #481 of 2683
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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #482 of 2683
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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #483 of 2683
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?
post #484 of 2683
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?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #485 of 2683
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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #486 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

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

Maybe worse.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #487 of 2683
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.
post #488 of 2683
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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #489 of 2683
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.
post #490 of 2683
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?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #491 of 2683
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.
post #492 of 2683
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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #493 of 2683
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?
post #494 of 2683
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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #495 of 2683
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.
post #496 of 2683
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?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #497 of 2683
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.
post #498 of 2683
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.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #499 of 2683
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.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #500 of 2683
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.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #501 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

From the Libertarian Party website:



That middle paragraph sounds a lot like tonton's proposal.

Except that he doesn't appear to allow for this:

Quote:
If he or she acts responsibly, without attacking others or causing injury negligently, no crime or harm has been done. Leave them in peace.

He seems to be of the opinion that the gun owner is guilty and should be punished simply by virtue of the fact that they owned the gun. Period.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #502 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

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

When it comes to 2nd Amendment rights, I'm grateful to live in Arizona - an open carry state.

FYI, I do not own a gun.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #503 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Except that he doesn't appear to allow for this:



He seems to be of the opinion that the gun owner is guilty and should be punished simply by virtue of the fact that they owned the gun. Period.

Yes, that is an important distinction indeed.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #504 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by jazzguru View Post

When it comes to 2nd Amendment rights, I'm grateful to live in Arizona - an open carry state.

Wow, there must be blood in the streets there. Total anarchy.

http://www.opencarry.org/
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #505 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

An "accident", fatal or not, isn't a crime.

By the way, such distinction won't protect anyone from a civil suit.
A is A
Reply
A is A
Reply
post #506 of 2683
Based on this and this, there appears to be almost no discernible correlation between the restrictiveness/looseness of gun laws and gun violence. For example California (#5 most gun violence) has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country from what I've heard. Idaho (#34 most gun violence) is perhaps least restrictive.

Quote:
Oklahoma (#33) was given two points out of a possible 100 in the report. The only marks were for not forcing colleges to allow guns on campus, although legislation in recent years has tried to change that.

The state is tied with Alaska (#45) for second to last, according to the Brady report. Utah ranks worst, with zero points, and California (#5) is at the top, with 79.

Maybe there are other factors involved?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #507 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by john galt View Post

Wow, there must be blood in the streets there. Total anarchy.

http://www.opencarry.org/

You get used to it. Why today, I only had to dodge 2 bullets on the way to work. But my bullet-proof vest gets quite cumbersome and stifling in this southern Arizona heat.

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply

Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem.

(I prefer the tumult of liberty to the quiet of servitude.)

Reply
post #508 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

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?

In Hong Kong, most gun crime results in life imprisonment. The border with Mainland China is a sieve, and guns are pretty much freely available in China, so it would be almost trivial to smuggle guns into Hong Kong. If what I believe is true, then Hong Kong's gun violence should be very small. If what you believe is true, then Hong Kong should have a significant amount of gun violence. Which do you believe is the case?

Don't say that there are other factors involved. It's well known that Hong Kong has an active organized crime society, people who would definitely want access to firearms. Hong Kong also has a huge immigrant population, many immigrants coming from places where gun violence is common. Hong Kong also has a huge wealth gap, poor security systems and no "good Samaritans". All these things point to a theory that gun violence in Hong Kong should be high. But it's not. Why? Severe punishment for gun violations. That's why.
post #509 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

As do guns.

And those guns that are designed for fair sport hunting would be exempted.

How is a pistol used for anything other than violence or threat of violence? How about a semi-automatic?
post #510 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And those guns that are designed for fair sport hunting would be exempted.

So your ire is limited to only hand guns?


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

How is a pistol used for anything other than violence or threat of violence? How about a semi-automatic?

Self defense?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #511 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Maybe there are other factors involved?

Like population density?
post #512 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Like population density?

So there are other factors. Right. Just as I thought.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #513 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Self defense?

Logic failure alert.

"Violence or threat of violence."

Under exactly what circumstance is the use of a firearm for self-defense not either violence or threat of violence?

Try again.
post #514 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

So there are other factors. Right. Just as I thought.

So Hong Kong must be a warzone. :o
post #515 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Logic failure alert.

"Violence or threat of violence."

Try again.

You don't consider self-defense a valid use of a firearm?

Top 40 reason to ban guns. So many good one, but my favorite:

Quote:
8. A woman raped and strangled is morally superior to a woman with a smoking gun and a dead rapist at her feet.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #516 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

So Hong Kong must be a warzone. :o

Not necessarily. Are you intentionally making these large leaps of "logic" or is it just a result of simple-thinking?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #517 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

You don't consider self-defense a valid use of a firearm?

Not when statistics say guns intended to be used for self-defense are much more likely to result in crime or suicide than for successful self-defense. Then I think guns intended to be used for self-defense are a liability, yes.

But now it's you who have moved the goal posts.

"How is a pistol used for anything other than violence or threat of violence? How about a semi-automatic?"
"Self defense?"

This is what you said, which was a pretty dumb answer, even if you support the use of guns for self-defense... you've got to admit. Self-defense or not, it's still violence.

And what happens when the rapist disarms the woman and shoots her or bludgeons her to death with the gun?
post #518 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

Not when statistics say guns intended to be used for self-defense are much more likely to result in crime or suicide than for successful self-defense. Then I think guns intended to be used for self-defense are a liability, yes.

I'm waiting for a link to these statistics.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

But now it's you who have moved the goal posts.

"How is a pistol used for anything other than violence or threat of violence? How about a semi-automatic?"
"Self defense?"

This is what you said, which was a pretty dumb answer, even if you support the use of guns for self-defense... you've got to admit. Self-defense or not, it's still violence.

Yes it is violence. It's a permissible form of violence in my view though.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

And what happens when the rapist disarms the woman and shoots her or bludgeons her to death with the gun?

Priceless. What if? What if? What if?

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
post #519 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by MJ1970 View Post

Not necessarily. Are you intentionally making these large leaps of "logic" or is it just a result of simple-thinking?

It's obvious that in the US, where firearms are legal, population density is directly related to gun violence, even in places where gun control is strict.

In Hong Kong, where guns are highly controlled, population density is not a factor, as the deterrent negates the effect.

It is the deterrent that is the driving force in the incidence of violence.
post #520 of 2683
Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

It's obvious that in the US, where firearms are legal, population density is directly related to gun violence, even in places where gun control is strict.

This isn't obvious at all. Please provide some data that prove this "obvious" conclusion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by tonton View Post

In Hong Kong, where guns are highly controlled, population density is not a factor, as the deterrent negates the effect.

It is the deterrent that is the driving force in the incidence of violence.

So you claim.

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply

The state is nothing more than a criminal gang writ large.

Reply
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: PoliticalOutsider
AppleInsider › Forums › Other Discussion › AppleOutsider › PoliticalOutsider › Miscellaneous News.