CDZ GUNS: a challenge to both liberals and conservatives

[2aguy]

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

A lot of mental illness is immediately observable, but as we can see here there are sociopaths who are pretty much blind to human empathy and sanity, and are incapable of making any sort of decisions without endless sophistry and hubris over what the meaning of 'is' is. These loons are the problem, they've been led to believe they should be taken seriously as 'Deciders N Stuff', and add in the idiotic narrative that 'nothing in the past ever worked, and they wuz all backwards and bigoted and we need trendy fashionable 'NewThink' now! Cuz, pop psychology has the answers to everything!

The actually dangerous mentally ill people, the shooters...didn't hide what they were.....not even the Florida shooter....we just need to clear up how to deal with this tiny number of dangeorus people...

 

[Picaro]

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

A lot of mental illness is immediately observable, but as we can see here there are sociopaths who are pretty much blind to human empathy and sanity, and are incapable of making any sort of decisions without endless sophistry and hubris over what the meaning of 'is' is. These loons are the problem, they've been led to believe they should be taken seriously as 'Deciders N Stuff', and add in the idiotic narrative that 'nothing in the past ever worked, and they wuz all backwards and bigoted and we need trendy fashionable 'NewThink' now! Cuz, pop psychology has the answers to everything!

The actually dangerous mentally ill people, the shooters...didn't hide what they were.....not even the Florida shooter....we just need to clear up how to deal with this tiny number of dangeorus people...

Yep. Quoted for truth. Many of the alleged 'arguments' here are total rubbish, on both the 'right' and the 'left', acting as if it's real tough to spot most of the loons or something.

 

[Foxfyre]

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

A lot of mental illness is immediately observable, but as we can see here there are sociopaths who are pretty much blind to human empathy and sanity, and are incapable of making any sort of decisions without endless sophistry and hubris over what the meaning of 'is' is. These loons are the problem, they've been led to believe they should be taken seriously as 'Deciders N Stuff', and add in the idiotic narrative that 'nothing in the past ever worked, and they wuz all backwards and bigoted and we need trendy fashionable 'NewThink' now! Cuz, pop psychology has the answers to everything!

Yes. Probably most sociopaths would pass a mental health evaluation with no problem whatsoever.

 

[Foxfyre]

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

A lot of mental illness is immediately observable, but as we can see here there are sociopaths who are pretty much blind to human empathy and sanity, and are incapable of making any sort of decisions without endless sophistry and hubris over what the meaning of 'is' is. These loons are the problem, they've been led to believe they should be taken seriously as 'Deciders N Stuff', and add in the idiotic narrative that 'nothing in the past ever worked, and they wuz all backwards and bigoted and we need trendy fashionable 'NewThink' now! Cuz, pop psychology has the answers to everything!

The actually dangerous mentally ill people, the shooters...didn't hide what they were.....not even the Florida shooter....we just need to clear up how to deal with this tiny number of dangeorus people...

Agreed. One of the most important lessons I learned as a manager is that you cannot fix a problem by changing the system instead of the people who are the problem. And you cannot fix a problem by changing the people when the system is the problem.

In our society we have people who are the problem but they aren't taken seriously until it is too late. And we have a system that is a problem and is likely creating more sociopathic people capable of committing these unconscionable acts.

 

[danielpalos]

not enough of a "work ethic from the Age of Iron", to muster, right wingers?

 

[Foxfyre]

Thank you for a well reasoned, thoughtful, and above all civil and non ad hominem response. That is increasingly rare on this board and elsewhere in this kind of medium. And while I think you would be a constructive and interesting contributor to any debate on the subject, I suspect we could not achieve compromise as I respect and appreciate the Constitution as a liberating document like no other, and probably cannot be convinced to see it as you say you see it. I like to think, however, that I don't close my mind to another point of view if another's argument is superior to my own.

(As an aside, I don't consider the assigned sound bites, repetitious insults and disparaging characterizations, asinine descriptions, the you-guys-did-it-too-and worse and other childish arguments on either side as either useful to the debate or constructive in any way, and certainly not superior to my argument. Or yours for that matter.)

Much obliged for the kind words! The spirit of this thread is the spirit of peace and harmony. You and I are of like mind in that regard. Our aims do not differ, only the means we prescribe. However, since I resonate deeply with your commitment to keeping an open mind (my position has changed rather drastically in recent years), I would be remiss if I did not elaborate on why I see law as antithetical to our ultimate goal (the Constitution, unfortunately, included; though I agree that it is an historically progressive attempt at government).

First, as a practical note, our current situation is what our Constitution eventually yielded, which does not speak well to its merit. In addition, Russia, China, and other nations that descended into outright madness had remarkably similar constitutions, which did nothing to prevent the atrocities that mar their history. Our own Constitution did nothing to prevent itself from becoming a doormat, and I don't see why that would change no matter how many times we reboot the effort.

The Constitution cannot be a liberating document. It creates a government, which - no matter how limited - is a restriction on freedom by definition. Government is a gun. That's all it's ever been, and all it can ever be. It cannot liberate, only coerce assent via threat of violence. In addition, the Constitution begins with an unfounded assertion of power - but whence came this power? "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..." Oh, it "shall", shall it? Howso? No answer provided.

As a friend, I implore you to read or listen to Lysander Spooner's book, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" if you have not done so already. I dare say that you MUST be familiar with this book and address the objections made therein to legitimize your advocacy of this document (all due respect, of course). Personally, I would very much like to hear your reaction to it, as your great respect for the document leads me to believe that if anyone could address the objections, it may very well be you. You may find it here, ad-free:

Okay as promised, I am going to address your well thought out and expressed comments here.

First I am well aware of Lysander Spooner's radical libertarian/anarchist views. In fact I was coach of a debate team arguing one of the points he raised, i.e. all taxes without the consent of the taxed are robbery.

But while I can agree with him on some things, I cannot accept Spooner's most basic point of view as I appreciate and defend the concept that respect for and defense of the God given or natural unalienable rights of humankind to be the only just and honorable laws. But laws are necessary to recognize and defend those unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are not recognized or defended under dictatorship/all powerful government that assigns the rights the people are allowed to have and can as easily take them away. And unalienable rights are not recognized or defended under anarchy in which the strong will inevitably prey on the weak and survival of the fittest becomes the norm.

The only just law is that which prevent one person or group from violating the unalienable rights of another person or group. The U.S. Constitution was intended to be that just law that would allow several states/groups to function as one nation and that would recognize and defend the right of the people to govern themselves and be whatever sort of society they wished to be, but would not allow them to force the unwilling to join them in that.

It is the corruption of the Constitution, effectively turning it on its head, that has promoted a breakdown of societal values and that has created the problems we have including, in my opinion, the mass murders that were virtually unheard of 50 years ago.

The result:
--an uncommon high percentage of single parent homes where the biological father is not present. 26 of 27 of the most violent mass murderers have come from such homes and statistically children from such homes are less likely to be successful in school and in their adult lives. And of course while many children from single homes thrive quite well, but we cannot ignore the alarming statistics and be intellectually honest that we care about the kids.

--an increasing hostility to public recognition or expression of religious faith. Violence among the young has increased proportionally.

--a lack of positive role models who inspire us to be the best that we can be as human beings first and then athletes, champions, leaders, etc. etc. Entertainment, sports, political et al figures no longer feel a responsibility to those who admire them.

--a lack of emphasis on critical thinking and making choices that ensure that people grow up to be healthy, positive, successful citizens instead of a problem to society. Instead it is more common to indoctrinate and punish those who dare to thing, speak, believe differently.

--increasing graphic violence and also anti-heroes or glamorization of criminality/immorality in all forms of recreation and entertainment to the point it desensitizes the natural revulsion/rejection of that. Unhealthy especially for the young and impressionable.

And no, more laws won't correct the situation. But removal of laws and conditions that have promoted and advanced this situation sure would.

And I'm pretty darn sure that if we restored the cultural norms that created a happy, productive, less needy, and less violent society, that the issue of the guns would again be a non issue.

 

[hunarcy]

Perhaps we should treat mass shootings like all other murders and not look for a "special" solution. Truth is that it's the idea that it's a special sort of crime that is creating all the trouble.

The mass murders are a small part of death via violent acts in the USA, but they get a huge lion's share of the media coverage and are studied like virtually no other crime. 17 died at Parkland and that is a tragedy of terrible proportions. The media covered it almost non stop for days and has covered it intermittently since and we all know more about that shooting than we know what happened in our our respective communities this week.

Hundreds of kids die on Chicago streets, in the projects, etc. every year that passes and the vast majority of us never hear about them except as a statistic. And that is repeated to various degrees in other cities across the country.

I want an honest national discussion on why this keeps happening and what needs to happen to stop it.

Simple. Enforce the laws we have and mandatory treatment of the mentally ill if they are judged to be a threat to society.

Simple answer, not so simple to actually do. Enforce the laws we already have, simple, sort of, straight forward for sure. However, we do need to take a hard look (at ALL levels of government from federal to local) at what those laws are, and use facts, reason and science to determine their effectiveness. This aspect also needs to include a comprehensive look at the effectiveness of our judicial system; based again on facts, reason and the use of scientific evidence, to determine the effectiveness of of said system. Then keep what makes sense, and change what has proven to have a level of effectiveness that is unacceptable. Not so simple now, is it?

As to the treatment of the mentally ill... What does that mean? Who decides what "mentally ill" is defined as? How does this "treatment" work in practice? Who pays for it? These, and many other, questions must be asked and adequately answered before ANY real proposals can be contemplated and debated. Then, and only then, can we, as a society, fairly evaluate what we want to be done, how we want it to be done, who we want to do it, and what oversight (if any) we want in place to minimise abuses. At that point, we can, finally, discuss proposals to change the law(s). So, this aspect is even more complex, especially given that the mental health profession is highly subjective, and therefore more susceptible to abuses than other disciplines of health care.

All who are "mentally ill" deserve treatment, but those who pose a threat to themselves and/or others are the ones we must focus on in this context. If they are that ill, they are not competent to decide on what treatment they should receive. So, a Judge, using the diagnosis and advice of a psychiatrist should decide for them and assign them to a facility to be treated and cared for until they are no longer a danger to themselves and others.

There are so many different types of mental disorders aka 'mental illness' that you simply cannot use a one-size fits all phrase in setting policy. Many people are under treatment for some kind of mental disorder that in no way renders them a danger to themselves or others. And some are a danger to themselves or others and should not have access to any dangerous objects or substances. You and I are not qualified to diagnose anybody in that regard.

Actually, I've addressed this several times. I have NEVER suggested you or I diagnose anyone. I HAVE suggested that such people be adjudicated by a judge based on psychiatric advice by qualified mental health professionals.

 

[Brian Blackwell]

Thank you for a well reasoned, thoughtful, and above all civil and non ad hominem response. That is increasingly rare on this board and elsewhere in this kind of medium. And while I think you would be a constructive and interesting contributor to any debate on the subject, I suspect we could not achieve compromise as I respect and appreciate the Constitution as a liberating document like no other, and probably cannot be convinced to see it as you say you see it. I like to think, however, that I don't close my mind to another point of view if another's argument is superior to my own.

(As an aside, I don't consider the assigned sound bites, repetitious insults and disparaging characterizations, asinine descriptions, the you-guys-did-it-too-and worse and other childish arguments on either side as either useful to the debate or constructive in any way, and certainly not superior to my argument. Or yours for that matter.)

Much obliged for the kind words! The spirit of this thread is the spirit of peace and harmony. You and I are of like mind in that regard. Our aims do not differ, only the means we prescribe. However, since I resonate deeply with your commitment to keeping an open mind (my position has changed rather drastically in recent years), I would be remiss if I did not elaborate on why I see law as antithetical to our ultimate goal (the Constitution, unfortunately, included; though I agree that it is an historically progressive attempt at government).

First, as a practical note, our current situation is what our Constitution eventually yielded, which does not speak well to its merit. In addition, Russia, China, and other nations that descended into outright madness had remarkably similar constitutions, which did nothing to prevent the atrocities that mar their history. Our own Constitution did nothing to prevent itself from becoming a doormat, and I don't see why that would change no matter how many times we reboot the effort.

The Constitution cannot be a liberating document. It creates a government, which - no matter how limited - is a restriction on freedom by definition. Government is a gun. That's all it's ever been, and all it can ever be. It cannot liberate, only coerce assent via threat of violence. In addition, the Constitution begins with an unfounded assertion of power - but whence came this power? "The Congress shall have the power to lay and collect taxes..." Oh, it "shall", shall it? Howso? No answer provided.

As a friend, I implore you to read or listen to Lysander Spooner's book, "No Treason: The Constitution of No Authority" if you have not done so already. I dare say that you MUST be familiar with this book and address the objections made therein to legitimize your advocacy of this document (all due respect, of course). Personally, I would very much like to hear your reaction to it, as your great respect for the document leads me to believe that if anyone could address the objections, it may very well be you. You may find it here, ad-free:

Okay as promised, I am going to address your well thought out and expressed comments here.

First I am well aware of Lysander Spooner's radical libertarian/anarchist views. In fact I was coach of a debate team arguing one of the points he raised, i.e. all taxes without the consent of the taxed are robbery.

But while I can agree with him on some things, I cannot accept Spooner's most basic point of view as I appreciate and defend the concept that respect for and defense of the God given or natural unalienable rights of humankind to be the only just and honorable laws. But laws are necessary to recognize and defend those unalienable rights. Unalienable rights are not recognized or defended under dictatorship/all powerful government that assigns the rights the people are allowed to have and can as easily take them away. And unalienable rights are not recognized or defended under anarchy in which the strong will inevitably prey on the weak and survival of the fittest becomes the norm.

The only just law is that which prevent one person or group from violating the unalienable rights of another person or group. The U.S. Constitution was intended to be that just law that would allow several states/groups to function as one nation and that would recognize and defend the right of the people to govern themselves and be whatever sort of society they wished to be, but would not allow them to force the unwilling to join them in that.

It is the corruption of the Constitution, effectively turning it on its head, that has promoted a breakdown of societal values and that has created the problems we have including, in my opinion, the mass murders that were virtually unheard of 50 years ago.

The result:
--an uncommon high percentage of single parent homes where the biological father is not present. 26 of 27 of the most violent mass murderers have come from such homes and statistically children from such homes are less likely to be successful in school and in their adult lives. And of course while many children from single homes thrive quite well, but we cannot ignore the alarming statistics and be intellectually honest that we care about the kids.

--an increasing hostility to public recognition or expression of religious faith. Violence among the young has increased proportionally.

--a lack of positive role models who inspire us to be the best that we can be as human beings first and then athletes, champions, leaders, etc. etc. Entertainment, sports, political et al figures no longer feel a responsibility to those who admire them.

--a lack of emphasis on critical thinking and making choices that ensure that people grow up to be healthy, positive, successful citizens instead of a problem to society. Instead it is more common to indoctrinate and punish those who dare to thing, speak, believe differently.

--increasing graphic violence and also anti-heroes or glamorization of criminality/immorality in all forms of recreation and entertainment to the point it desensitizes the natural revulsion/rejection of that. Unhealthy especially for the young and impressionable.

And no, more laws won't correct the situation. But removal of laws and conditions that have promoted and advanced this situation sure would.

And I'm pretty darn sure that if we restored the cultural norms that created a happy, productive, less needy, and less violent society, that the issue of the guns would again be a non issue.

Thank you for this explanation! I'm very glad you are so familiar with Spooner's work. This familiarity is not common, as the government-run educational system clearly has a biased perspective - born of self-interest - which precludes an earnest exploration of these ideas.

It's obvious that you recognize core moral values as the only true solution; a point on which we are in full agreement, and one that is generally deemed infeasible. Law has been accepted as a substitute for the self-regulating methodology of moral uplift. This is largely due to the religious influence, which (via literal interpretation of scripture) places the focus on points of divergence relative to irrelevant particulars, instead of drawing attention to the core principles at the foundation of their teachings. People believe that morality varies so widely between individuals that it cannot be a basis for social organization. This is simply not true. These divergences are superficial, as the overwhelming majority of people fundamentally desire happiness, do not want suffering, and if left to their own devices, will not commit acts of violence against others because their personal morality deems it unacceptable.

That being said, somehow you worked through Spooner's proofs but sill found the Constitution necessary, even if not valid. I assume you recognize the invalidity of the document (being a contract without binding authority), as his arguments are very strong. Correct me if I'm wrong on this point (though be warned - this correction will make you responsible for satisfactorily addressing his objections; a responsibility which I will endeavor to see fulfilled! Hahahaha).

You mention the existence God-given unalienable rights, and luckily, you have found a partner in conversation who is in agreement with you on this oft-challenged assertion. However, I would ask what you deem these rights to be, as I believe they are violated by the establishment of government, not defended. Is not equality one of these rights? If so, how do you justify the double standard present in establishing a Congress (remember, that Congress is not an ethereal institution, but a body of human beings)? Congress may lay and collect taxes, but the average citizen may not. Congress may make law, but the average citizen may not.

You claim that in an anarchist society, the strong may pray on the weak, but in that scenario they must do so via their own strength and are resisted by communities with the will and means to do so. With government, certain individuals are clothed in immense power, making them far stronger than they would be on their own. Furthermore, the culture is conditioned to accept their rule as legitimate, squashing the will of the populace to resist. Enforcers are hired, blinded by that fallacious claim to authority, and funded via coercion of the people in amounts that would be difficult to acquire without laws of taxation (particularly considering that both the willing and the unwilling must pay). If the problem is that there are some among us who do not respect inalienable rights, how can the solution be to raise some of those unscrupulous individuals to positions of power? Not only is it impossible to safeguard against this, it is actually more likely that those people will wind up in those positions, as they seek to dominate their fellow man, and are perfectly willing to lie, cheat, and steal to get there.

With government, the minority of immoral people can leverage this power to surpass the strength in numbers held by the moral majority. Equality, which would suppress immorality naturally, is sacrificed in favor of the false hope that inequality will favor the righteous. The very act of creating a seat of power guarantees that corruption and immorality will be magnified. How can this be denied, particularly since is has always been so, every time it has been tried?

A "just law" would simply be a reiteration of a right already held by the individual (most notably, the right to self-defense) and would thus be redundant and unnecessary. People can organize to any purpose, but when you grant that organization "authority" you move outside the scope of those rights held by the individual. No individual has the authority granted to government, and so their false delegation of such authority is clearly invalid. I submit to you that ALL law is written not to enforce individual rights and morality, but to launder immorality, obscuring its true nature by converting the non-rights of the individual into the rights of government. I'm suggesting that government is created solely to provide the inherent short-term benefits of immorality to the moral majority, thus shifting power away from the better angels of our nature. Government makes moral people do immoral things, and having this immoral basis, can only yield greater immorality than would be present otherwise.

 

[Foxfyre]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

Which is why I proposed a discussion that I believe is essential to fixing the problem.

Unless we stop accusing and attacking each other and pointing to the way it has been, we can't look forward to agree on a way find solutions that will make things better.

The OP suggests a discussion--just a discussion--of how we could all voluntarily support to achieve a common goal instead of the government dictating how we must think, how we must believe, how we must live our lives, conduct our businesses, and what rights we will and will not have.

The AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting had a 20-round magazine, smaller than most of the .22 rifles most of us grew up with, one trigger pull equals one bullet fired, and was of smaller caliber than your average deer rifle though some do use it for deer hunting and smaller game. No bump stock was used. So it is no more dangerous than hundreds of other legal weapons on the market today. Most on the 2nd Amendment side in this thread probably don't own an AR-15 or a bump stock but they passionately defend their right to have one if they want one. And so far that is more important than putting just those two things on the table as bargaining chips to get something much much better.

And probably most on the left are in or came from traditional homes and practice most or all of the compromises asked of those on the left. So it isn't like it is asking them to give up anything personally. But even with statistics such as 26 of the 27 most deadly mass killers came from homes without biological fathers present, they aren't willing to agree to even discuss how promoting traditional families could be an important part of the solution to mass killings. They instead doggedly defend the well intended policies that promoted most of the breakdown of the traditional family.

Is protecting every single aspect of gun rights more important than 17 dead kids? That's a very uncomfortable question to ask but it is a legitimate question.

Is defending well intended policy more righteous and important than the unintended negative consequences of a damaged culture that is producing more dead kids? It is so much easier to blame the guns than it is to blame the culture that has been created.

My hope for this thread was to put all of that on the table for a cold, hard, objective, honest discussion. But only a very few posting on this thread so far understand the concept of the OP. Everybody else wants to talks about getting or restricting the guns or preventing that from happening. And that keeps the division between us very wide with little hope of closing it.

And in my opinion, that is unfortunate.

 

[oldsoul]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

Which is why I proposed a discussion that I believe is essential to fixing the problem.

Unless we stop accusing and attacking each other and pointing to the way it has been, we can't look forward to agree on a way find solutions that will make things better.

The OP suggests a discussion--just a discussion--of how we could all voluntarily support to achieve a common goal instead of the government dictating how we must think, how we must believe, how we must live our lives, conduct our businesses, and what rights we will and will not have.

The AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting had a 20-round magazine, smaller than most of the .22 rifles most of us grew up with, one trigger pull equals one bullet fired, and was of smaller caliber than your average deer rifle though some do use it for deer hunting and smaller game. No bump stock was used. So it is no more dangerous than hundreds of other legal weapons on the market today. Most on the 2nd Amendment side in this thread probably don't own an AR-15 or a bump stock but they passionately defend their right to have one if they want one. And so far that is more important than putting just those two things on the table as bargaining chips to get something much much better.

And probably most on the left are in or came from traditional homes and practice most or all of the compromises asked of those on the left. So it isn't like it is asking them to give up anything personally. But even with statistics such as 26 of the 27 most deadly mass killers came from homes without biological fathers present, they aren't willing to agree to even discuss how promoting traditional families could be an important part of the solution to mass killings. They instead doggedly defend the well intended policies that promoted most of the breakdown of the traditional family.

Is protecting every single aspect of gun rights more important than 17 dead kids? That's a very uncomfortable question to ask but it is a legitimate question.

Is defending well intended policy more righteous and important than the unintended negative consequences of a damaged culture that is producing more dead kids? It is so much easier to blame the guns than it is to blame the culture that has been created.

My hope for this thread was to put all of that on the table for a cold, hard, objective, honest discussion. But only a very few posting on this thread so far understand the concept of the OP. Everybody else wants to talks about getting or restricting the guns or preventing that from happening. And that keeps the division between us very wide with little hope of closing it.

And in my opinion, that is unfortunate.

Ultimately, it comes down to core beliefs, IMHO. To over simplify, and over generalize:

On one side you have those who believe that rights come from some place or thing that is bigger/more powerful than humans (one example would be God, another would be nature). These folks tend to believe that government is a necessary evil, and thus should be limited to the very smallest it can be, while maintaining effectiveness to carry out that which is charged to it. Additionally, these people tend to believe that each and every individual is responsible for themselves. That is not to say they do not help those in need, quite the contrary, it's those who, seemingly, refuse to help themselves these people have a problem with.

On the other side you have those who believe that rights are granted by rulers (kings, queens, elected officials, etc.). In this "camp" are those who see government as the answer to most, if not all, problems in society. They tend to be more ok with a large, bureaucratic government that dictates, er, regulates, many aspects of our personal and professional lives because then it's "fair" and everyone knows the "rules". These people tend to look to government to solve problems such as poverty (Social Security, SNAP, WIC, etc.), violence (gun control, "hate crime" legislation, etc.), perceived social ills(civil rights act, anti-discrimination laws, etc.) and others.

Now, to be clear, very few people fit nicely into either of these two groups, I know I do not. Most people see commonality with both on different topics. That is where we need to start. Not the commonality itself, but the one thing most of us have in common:

We are individuals, and do not fit wholly into any one demographic/group. Some examples:
Most Christians are anti-abortion, but some see value in a society being pro-choice.
Many gun owners are anti-gun legislation, but some see value in restrictions.
I would dare to say most of us value diversity (race, ethnicity, ideological, gender, etc.), but some see value in keeping to our own.

The fact is, we are a divided nation, we have that in common. Let's talk about it, see where we agree, and disagree. At least then we have the knowledge, and we can look together to find solutions we can all live with. Sadly, as history has shown, we will likely need a common "enemy" to be able to see past our differences. Otherwise, we will go further down this road we have traveled before. hint: mid 1800's, and mid 1900's

 

[Brian Blackwell]

as long as they continue to refuse to acknowledge the fact that the Second Amendment is not ‘absolute,’

Regardless of what the SCOTUS has ruled, which is another topic altogether, what part of this seems to indicate to you that the second is NOT absolute:

"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." (emphasis added)

I agree that case law is such that it is effectively not absolute, however, I have yet to see an argument that is based on reason and logic, that refutes the clear absolution in the wording. Maybe you wish to give it a go. I won't even limit you to using your own words, quote whomever you like. The fact is that it was made really quite clear in the wording that it IS ABSOLUTE, regardless of how people have interpreted it sense.

Now, with regard to the text of the Second Amendment:

“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed[]” by government.

Article I of the Constitution authorizes the political process, where the will of the people is expressed by their elected representatives, including the will of the people to place limits and restrictions on citizens’ rights.

Articles III and VI of the Constitution authorize the judicial process, the means by which the people seek relief in the courts from government excess and overreach, and where government actions repugnant to the Constitution are invalidated, regardless the will of the majority of the people.

Article VI also acknowledges the rule of law, the supremacy of the Federal courts, that the Supreme Court determines what the Constitution means, and that those rulings become the law of the land.

The Bill of Rights is the foundation upon which the mechanics of government operate: the political process checked by the judicial process. Elected representatives enact laws and measures regulating – and in some cases, restricting – what the people may or may not do.

And those who believe that they have been disadvantaged by those laws and measures are at liberty to appeal to the courts, as for them the political process has failed.

In some cases, the courts will invalidate a measure because it does not comport with the Constitution; in other cases, the courts will uphold a measure as it is consistent with the Constitution, and does not manifest as an infringement, although a right is indeed being regulated or restricted.

Consequently, the Second Amendment’s admonishment that the right not be infringed does not prohibit its lawful and Constitutional regulation, including restrictions and prohibitions with regard to the possession of certain types of weapons.

While I basically agree with this, I am still unclear as to how one can interpret "...shall not be infringed." as anything but an absolute ban on government restriction. Make THAT argument, and I will determine if I agree with it. As of yet, you have not.

Which is why I proposed a discussion that I believe is essential to fixing the problem.

Unless we stop accusing and attacking each other and pointing to the way it has been, we can't look forward to agree on a way find solutions that will make things better.

The OP suggests a discussion--just a discussion--of how we could all voluntarily support to achieve a common goal instead of the government dictating how we must think, how we must believe, how we must live our lives, conduct our businesses, and what rights we will and will not have.

The AR-15 used in the Parkland shooting had a 20-round magazine, smaller than most of the .22 rifles most of us grew up with, one trigger pull equals one bullet fired, and was of smaller caliber than your average deer rifle though some do use it for deer hunting and smaller game. No bump stock was used. So it is no more dangerous than hundreds of other legal weapons on the market today. Most on the 2nd Amendment side in this thread probably don't own an AR-15 or a bump stock but they passionately defend their right to have one if they want one. And so far that is more important than putting just those two things on the table as bargaining chips to get something much much better.

And probably most on the left are in or came from traditional homes and practice most or all of the compromises asked of those on the left. So it isn't like it is asking them to give up anything personally. But even with statistics such as 26 of the 27 most deadly mass killers came from homes without biological fathers present, they aren't willing to agree to even discuss how promoting traditional families could be an important part of the solution to mass killings. They instead doggedly defend the well intended policies that promoted most of the breakdown of the traditional family.

Is protecting every single aspect of gun rights more important than 17 dead kids? That's a very uncomfortable question to ask but it is a legitimate question.

Is defending well intended policy more righteous and important than the unintended negative consequences of a damaged culture that is producing more dead kids? It is so much easier to blame the guns than it is to blame the culture that has been created.

My hope for this thread was to put all of that on the table for a cold, hard, objective, honest discussion. But only a very few posting on this thread so far understand the concept of the OP. Everybody else wants to talks about getting or restricting the guns or preventing that from happening. And that keeps the division between us very wide with little hope of closing it.

And in my opinion, that is unfortunate.

Ultimately, it comes down to core beliefs, IMHO. To over simplify, and over generalize:

On one side you have those who believe that rights come from some place or thing that is bigger/more powerful than humans (one example would be God, another would be nature). These folks tend to believe that government is a necessary evil, and thus should be limited to the very smallest it can be, while maintaining effectiveness to carry out that which is charged to it. Additionally, these people tend to believe that each and every individual is responsible for themselves. That is not to say they do not help those in need, quite the contrary, it's those who, seemingly, refuse to help themselves these people have a problem with.

On the other side you have those who believe that rights are granted by rulers (kings, queens, elected officials, etc.). In this "camp" are those who see government as the answer to most, if not all, problems in society. They tend to be more ok with a large, bureaucratic government that dictates, er, regulates, many aspects of our personal and professional lives because then it's "fair" and everyone knows the "rules". These people tend to look to government to solve problems such as poverty (Social Security, SNAP, WIC, etc.), violence (gun control, "hate crime" legislation, etc.), perceived social ills(civil rights act, anti-discrimination laws, etc.) and others.

Now, to be clear, very few people fit nicely into either of these two groups, I know I do not. Most people see commonality with both on different topics. That is where we need to start. Not the commonality itself, but the one thing most of us have in common:

We are individuals, and do not fit wholly into any one demographic/group. Some examples:
Most Christians are anti-abortion, but some see value in a society being pro-choice.
Many gun owners are anti-gun legislation, but some see value in restrictions.
I would dare to say most of us value diversity (race, ethnicity, ideological, gender, etc.), but some see value in keeping to our own.

The fact is, we are a divided nation, we have that in common. Let's talk about it, see where we agree, and disagree. At least then we have the knowledge, and we can look together to find solutions we can all live with. Sadly, as history has shown, we will likely need a common "enemy" to be able to see past our differences. Otherwise, we will go further down this road we have traveled before. hint: mid 1800's, and mid 1900's

Very thoughtful post. We are a divided nation because the system of government that is touted so highly by so many - a Democratic Republic - is inherently a system of division under the guise of cooperation.

Every issue is reduced down to “What should we do - this or that?” Each option is associated with a political party, and people are asked to take sides, with the sword of power dangling between them. Who will be able to grab it and use it to coerce their neighbor to act in accordace with the victors’ will?! Tune in for our continuing coverage, and don’t miss the finale in mid-November!

There is a flaw in the root code of this system that will eventually express no matter how many times we reboot it. We can have cooler heads prevail and resolve this issue or that; we can elect honest, steadfast “leaders”; we can even reduce down to strict Constitutional law - nothing will fix it. The problem will rear it’s ugly head again and again no matter what we do, until we commit to true cooperation through the widespread recognition of man’s inherent self-ownership.