The science of gun crimes

Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
We have rights because we exist

Considering the state can murder, jail without reason, and hold captive/torture, the only reason the rights are there is because the state (i.e. the law) says it is. Plenty of states have murdered, jailed without reason, and held captive/tortured, including the United States, ironically. And even if they hadn't, the mere fact that the possibility stands shows that these rights are not inalienable. They can be taken away (and have been in the past).
If you have no rights other than those which the state grants you then on what basis would you fight against such unjust things?
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
Comparing the sizes of our...economic understanding

Maybe this is better for another thread. What does all this have to do with guns? I'm not quite sure you grasp the economic environment and how to analyze it though.

Okay. You show me yours. Fluff it up as much as you can. Let us compare the relative sizes of our...economic understanding.

Tell me what you have read and what it means. Then I shall do the same.

Be bold. Whip it out. Let's see what you have.
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
Okay...so let's just say you live in a country that denies you a right you inherently deserve, were born with, and feel is inalienable.

Yet the country denies it anyway.

Does this right exist in anything but your mind?
Of course. I have my rights because I exist.

Our righs are no less rights if the state chooses not to protect them. If they injure us too much it is our recourse to our rights that justifies rebellion.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
If the murdered do not have a right to life on what basis do we punish the one who takes their life from them?
If someone is imprisoned unjustly and therefore has no right to liberty why should any complain? On what basis do people make the effort to reverse the imprisonment?

No one is saying you shouldn't stand up and fight for those rights, just that they are not inalienable. The truth might be unpleasant to some, but it is the truth. These rights (as defined in American culture) are rights because we define them that way and the government protects them- doesn't mean they are inalienable though- they can be taken away still. Look up the word inalienable- that is the source of your confusion.

And I am un-American? Just because I disagree with you? Right... If being un-American to you means taking a scientific outlook or taking the truth for what it is, then so be it, but most Americans I know including myself, don't define being American that way.

And then your little slur about being a Democrat- you really love your stereotypes don't you? Might surprise you to know that I have in my lifetime only been registered an independent or a Republican, never a Democrat. Not that I have any issues with Democrats... I have voted for candidates from both parties and independents.

If you have no rights other than those which the state grants you then on what basis would you fight against such unjust things?

You can fight for the state to grant and protect your rights. That is really the only fight you can fight since you can't change the laws of the universe to include some mystical concept of "rights".
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
Clax is right on every point. And you are wrong on every point.

Powerful statement...Based on established fact?

If the murdered do not have a right to life on what basis do we punish the one who takes their life from them?

Societal Law

If someone is imprisoned unjustly and therefore has no right to liberty why should any complain? On what basis do people make the effort to reverse the imprisonment?

Societal Law

This sentiment is asstonishly un-American.

American Societal Law

I must assume you are a democrat.

Never assume....it makes an....oh, you know.
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
The nature of our rights and of rebellions

You are dead wrong.
Let us examine your believes and see.
The argument that we, as citizens, have a constitutional right to take up arms against our lawfully constituted government is without any foundation.
Although there is a case to be made for a Constitutional right I base the right to cast off a form of government that has become injurious to our rights firmly on my rights as a human.

There is no support for such right, either historically or constitutionally.
Of course there is. This nation was founded upon a declaration of independence. Up until the rebellion against England succeeded the colonists were British subjects. They made their arguments against their King based upon natural law. It was their rights as human beings that formed the basis of a just rebellion.

The American Revolution was a war waged for separation of the American colonies from the rule of the English monarchy,
To whom did the British subjects in the colonies owe their fealty if not the British King? The colonists were British subjects. Are you confused on this point?

and not a rebellion against the established colonial governments. The colonies were being taxed under English laws in which they had no elected representatives in Parliament; and when the Crown refused to grant representation, the colonies, in Continental Congress, declared their separate statehood and independence.
Yes. They had a list of grievances against their King. They rebelled against their government. It was only through winning by the force of arms that we became a nation separate from Great Britain.

The notion that a citizen has a constitutionally protected right to bear arms against the government is utter nonsense. There is no such right; and to advocate such action is nothing less than sedition, to act upon it treason.
It was exactly the same for the openly rebellious colonists. When they signed the Declaration of Independence they were openly announcing their treason against their King and country.

Look at these magnificent, explanatory words, "When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation. "

One does not give an explanation on why the political bands must be dissolved unless one believes that one is subject to another. The British colonists would rebel against their government because the Laws of Nature required it. Their rights, and ours, flow from their (and our) existence.

Likewise, the reliance on the supposed historical record of the founding fathers is wrong. George Washington, who is considered the father of our nation and who commanded the Continental Army during the Revolutionary War, was the president of the Constitutional Convention that drafted our Constitution that is the framework of our government of laws, and thereafter elected to be the first President of the United States. During his term in office, President Washington put down the Whisky rebellion of 1794, which was an armed insurrection against the government in protest of the tax enacted by Congress in 1791. Washington personally lead the organized militia to quash the rebellion and assert the federal government’s authority over the states and their citizens.
The state, however wrong it is, will defend itself. Great Britain did not simply wave a fond farewell to the rebels. They fought. They fought for years. So too the small rebellions of Americans against the American government, usually by a very tiny percentage of the people in one place have all been ineffective.

One does not rebel until the time is ripe. Every argument must be exhausted. Every possibility at reconciliation must be tried, first, because rebellion is always a tragedy. And second, until the people are convinced there is no point. A rebellion that is not supported by a sizable minority of the people will fail. From my studies over the years of rebellions and insurrections the dividing line between certain failure and a possibility of success comes when between 3-5% actively support a rebellion with another 15-25% passively supporting it. Once numbers rise above those thresholds the rebellion may very likely succeed.

Misguided people like you would do well to learn from history lest you suffer the consequences of repeating it.
It seems I have a better grasp of history than you do. I shall remain firmly with my opinion.
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
Coors beer anyone?

Never assume....it makes an....oh, you know.
Are you answering from MYP? If he is not a democrat he may be a republican-in-name-only. It is like the relationship between Coors Beer (does Coors still exist) and real beer and its similarity with intercourse in a canoe on a lake. Both are f***ing close to water.

Anyone who believes that rights flow from the state is closer to being a democrat than to being a republican.
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
When one holds un-American beliefs

No one is saying you shouldn't stand up and fight for those rights, just that they are not inalienable.
Of course they are. I cannot be separated from the rights I hold because I exist. That is what the phrase "unalienable rights" means. See the words, "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."

One cannot separate my right to life from my very being. Nor my right to liberty or any other right.

The truth might be unpleasant to some, but it is the truth.
Before the truth can be unpleasant one must have a grasp on what the truth is. I shall continue to help you to see it.

These rights (as defined in American culture) are rights because we define them that way and the government protects them- doesn't mean they are inalienable though- they can be taken away still. Look up the word inalienable- that is the source of your confusion.
It is un--not in. "Not to be separated, given away, or taken away;" I cannot be separated from my rights. They can be taken in which an injustice, and probably a crime, has been done to me. The meaning of the phrase is certainly the source of your confusion.

And I am un-American? Just because I disagree with you?
No. You disagree with American history, our American heritage, our philosophical underpinnings...that is what makes you un-American. Your way of thinking is closer to European Marxist-socialism. You are not alone. About half of us are not comfortable with European socialism stemming indirectly from Radical Karl's beliefs.

Right... If being un-American to you means taking a scientific outlook or taking the truth for what it is, then so be it, but most Americans I know including myself, don't define being American that way.
I know you like to pat yourself on the back for being modern and scientific. Radical Karl was also very concerned. He did what he could to make his pernicious beliefs sound modern and scientific. You agree with him.

And then your little slur about being a Democrat- you really love your stereotypes don't you? Might surprise you to know that I have in my lifetime only been registered an independent or a Republican, never a Democrat. Not that I have any issues with Democrats... I have voted for candidates from both parties and independents.
Democrat-lite then. There really is very little difference between an independent or a RINO and a Democrat.

You can fight for the state to grant and protect your rights. That is really the only fight you can fight since you can't change the laws of the universe to include some mystical concept of "rights".
You will continue to be wrong but believe you have discovered some amazing truth that the state gives us rights. It remains un-American. The foundation of our starting point as a people began based on our unalienable rights.
 

myp

Jan 2009
5,841
50
misterveritis, I forgot you are the radical extremist who is ready to overthrow the government. No point in trying to reason with you. I am an American whether or not you like it. Have fun rooting for your sports teams, er I mean political parties.

Oh and inalienable and unalienable are the same thing ;) http://grammarist.com/usage/inalienable-unalienable/
 
Dec 2012
518
11
Madison, AL
misterveritis, I forgot you are the radical extremist who is ready to overthrow the government. No point in trying to reason with you. I am an American whether or not you like it. Have fun rooting for your sports teams, er I mean political parties.

Oh and inalienable and unalienable are the same thing ;) http://grammarist.com/usage/inalienable-unalienable/

You will come around. 2013 will be an amazing year of tyranny.

Unalienable is from the declaration of independence. Inalienable is not.

I don't care one way or another. You may be an American but your thinking is decididly European socialist.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas

Couldn't get it to work, I don't know when this turned into a second amendment discussion because it seemed to be about gun crime.

About all of the artical that I read was that the gut reactions are either to ban guns or arm the world. That these are over simplifications of a complex problem. I personally agree, either reaction is just that a reaction, really a match on a fire.

But I would have liked to have read further into the artical to hear the proposed solution if they had one.

There is a solution, but it would require a very lengthy post, not sure anybody would read it. Out would be based on my knowledge and experience, so out would be opinion that is supported. Judging by the last two attempts at starting threads I either am not very collected with my thoughts or people have little interest.

I do tend to be very self reflective and present my ideas, seems to work in other forums but it has never gotten much response here.
 
Jan 2012
1,975
5
Texas

I enjoyed the artical. It does seem to be a bit anti NRA, because they do not rep the second amendment fundamentalists, they represent the people. Just because you don't own a gun or don't want to doesn't mean you don't have a right too. It just means you don't exercise your right, which is your right also.

The NRA is a citizens advocacy group just like the ACLU. It only exists to make people aware of their rights and fight for the people as a collective.

It isn't a lobby to support the constitution, lobbyists support the NRA but the NRA in its self is an advocacy for second amendment rights.

On a side note myth number seven? Really? Do people actually believe this? People who conform to such a law that is really only self enforced, by their own choice would not be likely to brake it. That was a bit strange.

The myth about assault weapons, finely somebody has said something that makes sense, all weapons are capable of being used in assault, frankly it is their sole purpose.

I don't care much for this regulation of magazine capacity, again a law that is very difficult to enforce will only secede in limiting those that choose to follow the law. And it is such an easy law to circumvent. I don't like the arbitrary number of bullets in the magazine that people choose, if I was to use a fire arm defensively I am at a disadvantage because the actor against me could simply have an illegally larger capacity magazine. but the article left room for debate on this.

I agree mostly with this article, our rights are not in real danger, anymore than normally.
 
Oct 2012
4,429
1,084
Louisville, Ky
Homeland Security at work...probably saved a few innocent folks from death.


Freakin' Terrorists.
 
Top