[News] The Trayvon Martin Discussion Thread

ElJuski

ElJuski

Staff member
I think what the framers intended was that we had a shotgun behind a plate glass that says "In Case Of Military Overthrow, Break Glass"
 
ElJuski

ElJuski

Staff member
Also, and in all honesty, I'm actually for the legal right for someone to carry a gun. I mean, whatever, as long as it doesn't kill an innocent person. The problem is gun culture. Just because you have the right to do something doesn't mean you have to go around being an obnoxious dick about it all the fucking time.
 
S

Soliloquy

Now, my worry is that I'll be attacked by someone in a vehicle equipped with reactive armor. Current gun legislation prevents me from defending myself from such an attack.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Null said:
I want to say something against that, because I know a lot of responsible gun owners who aren't like that.

But I also know or have seen enough "gun nuts" that do adhere to the stereotypes more closely than I'd like to admit, so in all honesty, I can't. I think some people take it to a ridiculous level. But some people take EVERYTHING to a ridiculous level.


I believe that the intention was that the people have the right to be armed, to have the means to protect themselves from an oppressive government. And Soliloquoy, people did carry loaded pistols commonly in cities until probably near the 20th century. The sheer number of "pocket pistols" sold by Colt and other gun companies in the 19th century attest to that, and there were no shortage of flintlock pistols for gentleman's personal defense in the 18th as well - much smaller than military "horse" pistols or naval pistols, and not as refined as dueling weapons.
Click to expand...

 
fade

fade

Staff member
GasBandit said:
It has nothing to do with civic duty and everything to do with dispelling the notion that the 2nd amendment is about allowing guns ONLY for a strictly controlled organized paramilitary organization that is held on a short leash and with substandard weaponry. Having just come out of a revolution and still smarting from the yoke of oppression being yanked off through the blood shed from and by men as young as 14, the intent of the founders is clear as crystal - the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with hunting or home defense (as I've said often and loudly). Rather it has to do with keeping the government hesitant to oppress an armed populace that could conceivably overthrow them by force. The founders wanted any american with the means and inclination to be able to equip himself to be as deadly as any soldier, and wanted the federal government to have absolutely no way to prevent him from becoming so.
Click to expand...
When you say it that way, it actually sounds worse. It's like a self-contradictory idealistic amendment written on the high of recent events.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
To be truthful, I appreciate the second amendment. I just find "to scare the feds straight" to be a rather weak reason to avoid regulation.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
fade said:
When you say it that way, it actually sounds worse. It's like a self-contradictory idealistic amendment written on the high of recent events.
Click to expand...
Well, I have a habit of phrasing things in the way most likely to cause discomfort. But it was somewhere along the lines of "Let's make sure nothing like this ever happens again."

(I almost darwinned myself by saying "more along the lines of 'Never again.'")
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
fade said:
To be truthful, I appreciate the second amendment. I just find "to scare the feds straight" to be a rather weak reason to avoid regulation.
Click to expand...
Well, if the feds can clamp down on it, it doesn't scare them any more, does it?
 
fade

fade

Staff member
Like I've said before, one of the differences between a conservative and a liberal is that apparently conservatives have a lot more faith in the human race than liberals do.
 
S

Soliloquy

fade said:
Like I've said before, one of the differences between a conservative and a liberal is that apparently conservatives have a lot more faith in the human race than liberals do.
Click to expand...
Let me turn that thought on its head real quick.

Consider: 1) the species of the members of government and 2) the species of the people who voted in the federal government.

Unless there's something going on I'm not aware of, both groups are composed entirely of humans.

Now consider: 1) Liberals generally want to give a group of humans more power over everybody else and 2) conservatives generally want to limit the amount of power given to any group of humans.

Now I ask you: who has more faith in the human race?
 
fade

fade

Staff member
I have a feeling you read my post backwards because you kind of just made my point.

But for your first point, what difference does it make? People have opinions on their own groups all the time.
 
M

makare

I have to agree with Fade, I think I am confused really at this point, but conservatives (and gas) always seem to have this rose colored glasses perception of people and businesses. That they are kinder, more charitable and more responsible than they actual are.. or want to be.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
you can't use the thing you're providing a reason for as the reason. That's like saying pie is good because it's pie.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
I think the idealistic idea is that a representative is a "person", not "people". A person can be intelligent. People are idiots. Spoiler alert: it rarely works, unfortunately. Theoretically, a liberal would love to have even less government than a libertarian. These structures are not supposed to be about who has the power, they're about making bridges to the future, which could be torn down eventually. Saying that liberals want to put a group of people in power sounds incredibly backwards to me. It's like saying a car makes pollution in order to run. That's the ideal, anyway. Unfortunately, there are politicians involved.
 
GasBandit

GasBandit

Staff member
Makare's accused me of having rose colored glasses about people before, but it just goes to show you how few people read Adam Smith any more or understand his influence on conservative thought.

As every individual, therefore, endeavours as much as he can both to employ his capital in the support of domestic industry, and so to direct that industry that its produce may be of the greatest value; every individual necessarily labours to render the annual revenue of the society as great as he can. He generally, indeed, neither intends to promote the public interest, nor knows how much he is promoting it. By preferring the support of domestic to that of foreign industry, he intends only his own security; and by directing that industry in such a manner as its produce may be of the greatest value, he intends only his own gain, and he is in this, as in many other eases, led by an invisible hand to promote an end which was no part of his intention. Nor is it always the worse for the society that it was no part of it. By pursuing his own interest he frequently promotes that of the society more effectually than when he really intends to promote it. I have never known much good done by those who affected to trade for the public good.
Click to expand...
Also, as implied by sera and soliloquy above (and explicitly stated by the Shepherd in Firefly, if you want a pop culture reference :troll: ) , it isn't that conservatives think better of people, it's that we don't trust people to have too much power over other people. Because governments are made of people, themselves largely ungoverned.

If you're the kind of person who doesn't like the power, influence, and motivations of corporations, then you should REALLY hate government... because the government is really just a special kind of corporation that doesn't have to play by the rules and gets final say in everything.
 
fade

fade

Staff member
It'll take more than an anecdote by Adam Smith that essentially rephrases the popular church concept of sola gratia to convince me. The government should (theoretically) answer to the voters and be transparent, which is a luxury we're not afforded by corporations. Idiosyncratically, corporations ARE governments. We pay private taxes to them, and we have even less control over how they control our lives. You could argue the free market concept, but I think we've all seen quite enough capitulation to corporate whims by consumers with no real recourse or power to know how much influence your dollar has on corporate decision making. There's this magical concept that somehow my dollar counts, but really, how much choice or effect do you truly have? About the same as you have with your vote, except everyone gets to see where the results of that vote go.
 
S

SeraRelm

Is it here?

I bet it's here.


Oh look, you can see my hopes and dreams in the bottom left corner...
 
Bowielee

Bowielee

fade said:
It'll take more than an anecdote by Adam Smith that essentially rephrases the popular church concept of sola gratia to convince me. The government should (theoretically) answer to the voters and be transparent, which is a luxury we're not afforded by corporations. Idiosyncratically, corporations ARE governments. We pay private taxes to them, and we have even less control over how they control our lives. You could argue the free market concept, but I think we've all seen quite enough capitulation to corporate whims by consumers with no real recourse or power to know how much influence your dollar has on corporate decision making. There's this magical concept that somehow my dollar counts, but really, how much choice or effect do you truly have? About the same as you have with your vote, except everyone gets to see where the results of that vote go.
Click to expand...
But, corporations are people... Like Subway. At least that's what the law says. Corporate personhood is the main reason that corporations have as much power as they do. They largely have the legal right to remain unregulated because they are ( in the eyes of the law) protected by the same rights as an individual.
 
Necronic

Necronic

Staff member
The problem with the second ammendment is that it simply can't be followed. The purpose of it was to have a populace that could passively (w/ out government permissions) arm itself well enough to defend itself against the government if the time arose.

In the time of the founders this made sense, as men with muskets could potentially defend themselves against other men with muskets. But as time went on and military technology progressed the potential weapons a person could be allowed to posses did not, and could not, keep up. I don't think that even the NRA would want to see civilians with access to Stingers, Harlequins, or C4, not to mention Tanks, Jet fighters, or, going even further, chemical or biological weapons, or, going the furthest, nuclear weapons (which are a necessary deterrent for any group seriously considering major territorial warfar against the US.)

The population will never be able to be allowed to arm itself to the extent that is reasonable for military self-defence. This is not an arguable point. This, in fact, proves that the 2nd ammendment was written in a context that simply does not exactly mesh with the current state of military equipment.

So, with that we can understand that the 2nd ammendment is fatally anachronistic in structure, and simply needs to be reworked, but the intent should still be understood and maintained.
 
AshburnerX

AshburnerX

Oh no, I do that all the time. I've been looking for new pocket knife but haven't seen one that didn't look like it wouldn't snap under use. Kinda wish I could find another of those specialized for electronics like my old one.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top