Thursday, May. 28, 2015    Login | Register           

Guns and governing philosophy, Part 1

Cal Beverly's picture

Mention the word, and the walls go up, the blood-red line gets drawn in the sand: Guns.

Since these pages have seen lots of rhetorical ammunition expended in recent months about the issue of gun control, I decided to waste a little more ink and space to try some logical thinking instead of emitting emotions.

Here we must honestly agree on some basic premises, or the communications have ended, like a yes-no decision tree.

Our Declaration of Independence contains this famous sentence:

“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.”

We will return in a moment to pick up the sentence fragments that follow that first famous line.

Our Founders went to bloody war using guns to kill people who looked just like themselves in order to establish that basic premise: Each individual human possesses rights that are not conferred — indeed, are not conferrable — by any other person, group, or government.

Premise One: To say it in a contemporary way, rights are not created by governments, whether run by Democrats or Republicans. Rights come before governments, before laws. According to our founding American document, there is no chicken or egg argument here.

If you cannot agree with that basic principle, you should peel off from this discussion: We have no common ground.

Now those un-famous sentence fragments, each beginning with a “that” and meant to be understood in connection with the first clause, “We hold these truths to be self-evident ...”:

“That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness.”

Now those words truly are revolutionary.

To say it another way, people agree to form a government so that these “self-evident” individual rights might be “secure,” safe not just from individual lawless thieves and murderers, but also from organized groups of thieves and murderers.

Premise Two: Our Founders thus give us the American philosophy of government — Rights are paramount, above every other principle and before all laws, and governments that try to take away those rights deserve to be changed or abolished.

Again, if you can’t agree with that foundational principle of the American revolution, you should peel off. We have no common ground and the concept of “guns” will remain to you an incoherent morass of emotion, devoid of reason.

Premise Three: Inherent in that right of “Life,” as annunciated by Thomas Jefferson, is the right of self-defense. If one cannot defend oneself from the taking of one’s life, then no other rights have any substantive meaning.

If you think that you or I have no inherent “Right” of self-defense against those who would kill us or enslave us, then you also should peel off. Our conversation is over.

Let’s see who remains:

1. A small but fervent group of self-described Second Amendment absolutists who might be surprised to learn they share at least one belief attributed to Chairman Mao Tse-Tung: “Political power grows out of the barrel of a gun.” (No aspersions intended.) Group 1, thy name is “Cold Dead Hands.”

2. A much larger group that says, “Yes, but ...” These are the “degree” people: “A six-shooter is okay, but I draw the line at 10-round magazines.” Group 2, thy name is “Arbitrary Buts (just one “t”).”

3. A group of unknown size with two subsets. Subset A says, in effect, “That was then, this is now. What may have been valid in 1776 (or 1789 or when the amendment was adopted) is no longer valid in 2013. Times have changed and we must change with the times.” Subset B says, “The Second Amendment doesn’t say what you think it says. It actually limits gun rights to National Guard units and is not applicable to individuals.” Group 3, both subsets, thy name is “Living Constitution.”

Have I missed anybody?

You’ll let me know, won’t you? We’ll all be civil, right?

In Part Two, I’ll do some more fingernail scratching on the blackboard for all three groups.

[Cal Beverly is editor and publisher of The Citizen.]

Comments

S. Lindsey's picture

you used logic.

The antithesis of the Gun Control crowd.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

PTC Observer's picture

"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."

John Adams, 'Argument in Defense of the Soldiers in the Boston Massacre Trials,' December 1770

Thank you for your lucid missive, I am looking forward to your next installment.

rolling stone's picture

I anticipate a conservative amount of conservative bashing and a liberal amount of liberal bashing. I admit to saying "that was then, this is now" but rather than assuming that I meant that what was said in 1789 is no longer valid a more accurate statement would be that it is still valid however more validity is now needed. Cal, I would like to have my own subset please. Regarding the name of group 3, "Living Constitution", my feeling is best compared to another fictional character, Huckleberry Finn, after he found out that Moses lived a long time prior: <em>...so then I didn't care no more about him, because I don't take no stock in dead people.</em>

S. Lindsey's picture

[quote=Stone]I admit to saying "that was then, this is now" but rather than assuming that I meant that what was said in 1789 is no longer valid a more accurate statement would be that it is still valid however more validity is now needed.[/quote]

Do you have a beeper for that reverse?

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

rolling stone's picture

What I said: [quote]That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future. I have no problem with gun ownership but it is delusional to think that guns are any sort of talisman and that restrictions based on common sense take away "god given" rights[/quote]

As an explanation, I interrupt "god-given" as what you are born with, and to date, no baby has been born holding a gun.

S. Lindsey's picture

What I said...

[quote=S. Lindsey]"I ask, Sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people. To disarm the people is the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
George Mason
Co-author of the Second Amendment during Virginia's Convention to Ratify the Constitution, 1788 "[/quote]in reference to rather the Founders meant Militia's mean standing Army or Civilians while responding to PTCO
http://thecitizen.com/blogs/terry-garlock/01-08-2013/gun-control-ignoran...

What you responded with....

[quote=rolling stone]That was then, this is now. Way-back machine visions are fine however we are dealing with the present and the future. I have no problem with gun ownership but it is delusional to think that guns are any sort of talisman and that restrictions based on common sense take away "god given" rights.[/quote]

We all know what you meant there Stone to keep trying to say "No I didn't say that" or "I meant something different then what you read" is a little "spineless". You wrote it we read it and it was very clear what you intended. Now you may have re-thought that statement and NOW believe differently... that's OK we all have those moments.

[quote=rolling stone]
As an explanation, I interrupt "god-given" as what you are born with, and to date, no baby has been born holding a gun.[/quote]

Really God Given rights is what you are born with and no baby is born with a gun... That is your explanation NOW???

Dude you have more definitions then a Webster's Dictionary.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

rolling stone's picture

[quote]We all know what you meant there Stone[/quote]
So S. Lindsey is plural?

[quote]You wrote it we read it and it was very clear what you intended[/quote]
It does not appear that much of anything was absorbed. Hubris does not empower one to assign meanings as one sees fit.

Your derogatory manners are yours to keep.

S. Lindsey's picture

Dust in the wind...

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

PTC Observer's picture

ox·y·mo·ron
/ˌäksəˈmôrˌän/
Noun
A figure of speech in which apparently contradictory terms appear in conjunction (e.g., faith unfaithful kept him falsely true).

Or

Still valid but more validity is now needed.

Truth is not time dependent, a simple concept that you appear unable to grasp

rolling stone's picture

The concept of valid does not constitute an absolute value. An understanding can be valid, and that understanding with additional valid information taken into account would have more validity.

Truth is not locked away in the past, in fact it only exists in the here and now, a simple concept that you appear unable to grasp.

PTC Observer's picture

Now you're talking, you are exactly right. It exists in the here and now, just like it did at the dawn of mankind. Truth is also valid today as it was at our founding. What of universal truth Rolling?

How about that we own our lives? That's a universal truth, don't you think?

rolling stone's picture

We are getting somewhere. We are alive only in the moment called now and it is ours. The truth is no different now then it was in the beginning.

The problem is: when humans get hold of the truth, it is not the truth any longer.

MajorMike's picture

Well Kevin, That depends on what you're definition of "is" is. History, or truth, has always been defined by the victor.

I really think that "We hold these truth's to be self evident" is timeless and applies to all generations.

rolling stone's picture

This is not Kevin.

[quote]I really think that "We hold these truth's to be self evident" is timeless and applies to all generations.[/quote]

What is timeless exists in the present, all else is either in the past or in the future.

Truth was at one time that stone tools were all that were available and someones life, liberty and pursuit of happiness were quite dependent on them. Now, not so much.

S. Lindsey's picture

Stone.. While going about my day I got to thinking on what you said about God Given Rights.
Let’s forget about that whole “That was then this is now” statement for a minute and focus on this:
[quote=Stone]As an explanation, interrupt “god-given” as what you are born with, and to date, no baby has been born holding a gun[/quote]

First one can assume from this statement that you are in the “God is a myth” crowd.. That’s OK got no problem with that. However rather you believe our Rights come from God or not is irrelevant.

We have a Natural Right of self-defense. We see this in Nature. A Mother Bear will protect her Cubs no matter the intent of the Animal or Person is.
She will attack to defend not only her Cubs but herself.

This is a Natural Right of self-defense.

We have this right no matter what you or the Government decides. Rather it was Gaia or God Nature made us with an instinct of self-preservation.

With that being said if all things where equal and no guns existed anywhere in the World then you would be correct in your argument of “That was then and this is now”. We would not need a level of protection far superior then what the threat level against us actually is.

<strong>This is the basic flaw in your argument.</strong>

Your argument is that we/citizens don’t need to own “Assault” styled weapons nor do we need 30 round mags. Again if we did not face that threat level your argument would be valid. But by trying to lower our defensive capabilities while doing nothing to lower the threat level you are in essence trying to negate our Natural Right of self-Defense.

So here is the crux of the issue..

1. Do I have the “Right” to meet aggression with aggression and do I have the “Right” to meet force with force?
2. Do I have the “Right” to have the same defensive capabilities as the threat level that exists?
3. In other words if a Criminal enters my home with a “Assault” weapon with a 30 round mag do I not have the “Right” to meet that Criminal with at least the same level of force?

Can you guarantee that this scenario will never happen? Can the Government guarantee this will never happen? If not and you can’t, then what you and other Gun Control advocates are doing is attempting to change our Natural Rights without regard to threat levels we may face. You ignore that there are somewhere more than 200 Million guns already in existence and approx 80 million of those are “Assault” styled as it is called, although these type of weapons are actually only used in less than 2% of homicides…but the threat exist.

Stone this is why you are committing a logical fallacy by thinking that removing “Assault” weapons and hi-cap mags this will somehow make people safer and lower the threat level enough to negate the need for self-defense.

You nor the Government can do that.

Remember if you believe, and I think you do, that your “Rights” are given to you by Man or Government… What is given to you can also be taken away.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

[Quote]First one can assume from[/quote]

You know what they call those who ASSume!

S. Lindsey's picture

I have made a lot of ASSumptions about you.. I find them mostly all correct.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

[Quote]Again if we did not face that threat level your argument would be valid.[/quote]

Please tell us the threat level that makes it valid to have automatic assault weapon with above 10 bullet capacity in our private home. Thanks.

The Wedge's picture

that draws the following threads together: a US military increasingly being prepped with leaders being tested and evaluated on their willingness to raise arms and use force on US citizens in US borders, an increasing desire to set up "national registries" of firearms and to set up scenarios of confiscation of firearms if "voluntary turn ins" are made with currently legal firearms, and the "salami-tactics" of a national government paramount-minded citizens who want to incrementally eliminate firearms possession in private citizen hands. So in this confluence, the obvious threat level would be when a federalized force such a squad of soldiers is using registry lists to confiscate property from private homes. In such a situation, having automatic weapons would be the only way to "level" the field so to speak. You would discount this scenario but you would be historically naive to do so.

rolling stone's picture

[quote] So in this confluence, the obvious threat level would be when a federalized force such a squad of soldiers is using registry lists to confiscate property from private homes. In such a situation, having automatic weapons would be the only way to "level" the field so to speak. You would discount this scenario but you would be historically naive to do so.[/quote]

Should this scenario ever come to pass I believe the reality would be that the vast majority of the civilian owned weapons be used to keep their owners company while they are hiding under their beds. The real deals would be vastly outnumbered.

[quote] a US military increasingly being prepped with leaders being tested and evaluated on their willingness to raise arms and use force on US citizens in US borders[/quote]

Who are these military leaders? Who are these 'citizens' who they would be willing to 'turn on'? The scenario that comes to mind is the use of the national guard during the Civil Rights movement and the military brought in after Katrina. In both cases, they were protecting those citizens who were in danger. Has the job of the Guard/ military changed? Who do you fear? Are there organizations that you know of who would turn on law abiding citizens? Wouldn't the military/ Guard protect the law abiding citizen and their 'rights' as they have done in the past?

Are you suggesting that there is a group of assault weapon owners who are prepared to take on our National Guard and/or military if the military appears to want to enforce something you disagree with? Hummmmm - brings back some ugly memories. Makes me even more supportive of banning assault weapons in private ownership. Scary stuff to hear and/or imagine. I'm sure you will correct my imagined fears .

NUK_1's picture

You want to know who would turn on US/City residents without any hesitation? The New Orleans PD would gladly step up and show you, though their numbers shrank when a chunk of them fled the city after Katrina instead of doing their jobs.

It's funny how the LAPD gets a lot of media attention and the true brutality and complete corruption has been in New Orleans for decades in regards to their thug police force. Just because they can pull-off Super Bowls, Sugar Bowls and Mardi Gras as well as direct traffic better than any police force on the planet that I've seen doesn't mean a lot when it comes to the day-to-day policing and utter sickness there.

New Orleans is truly a place where, yes, you may need to own firearms to protect yourself from law enforcement. Of course, the rest of the cesspool living there is another reason, but that's why I live here and not there.

Are you for real? What would happen to a 'homeowner' who turned his automatic weapon on 'law enforcement? I grew up in Los Angeles. Left in 1961. You are unrealistically paranoid - but certainly entitled to your opinions and perceptions. IMO. Some remaining law enforcement from New Orleans were recently convicted of murder which occurred in the aftermath of Katrina. The arrival of the Guard/military stopped the lawlessness, not individual homeowners with automatic weapons. I returned to LA in 1963, lived through the '65 riot. Again, it was military who stabilized the area. I have a fear of 'secret' militias re-enforcing practices that are considered 'illegal' . But of course, Wedge is the one who may answer my question.

My fear is of extremist hate groups which are all over our country. They are exercising their freedom of speech right on their websites. Scary stuff if they are armed. Just sharing my fear.

NUK_1's picture

You are talking about the brutality of the LAPD during the civil rights era and I'm not minimizing that whatsoever. I didn't grow up there. I know New Orleans PD and what they have done post-1960's in the 1970's and 80's and 90's.

I think there's been a lot more reform in the LAPD than the NOPD as it relates to right now. NOPD is not only corrupt but also a bunch of wanna-be thugs that enjoy beating the hell out of people. I was never a victim of that but know plenty who were and have witnessed it first-hand along with the subsequent cover-ups.

So there are enough assault weapon owners in New Orleans to effectively protect themselves from a dysfunctional law enforcement? Are they organized into an ' other militia'? Interesting. I'm grateful that I don't live in an area where there are nightly drive-bys. I rely on my alarm system, my semi-automatic, my neighbors and law enforcement. Unfortunately, me and my family are targets of sick extremists in this country according to their not so secret websites - so I do remain vigilant. Sad commentary on the land of the free and the brave. Fayette County has come a long way - and again, I celebrate that!

Cyclist's picture

The homicide rate of some inner cities is off the chart and you're worried about extremist groups.

Caution - The Surgeon General has determined that constant blogging is an addiction that can cause a sedentary life style.

The extremist groups don't have the nerve to go into inner city. They're comfortable threatening what they call uppity citizens.
You don't have to worry about black on black crime or the ignorant extremist. The crime stats in Newtown weren't high - remember? I remember dogs and screaming 'students'. Thank heavens for the military - the law enforcement was sadly lacking. We all 'see' based on our own experience. I understand yours, don't dismiss mine. Take a look at some of the websites. I do fear the not so secret militias. I have faith in those who serve in the military based on their actions in recent crisis.

SPQR's picture

To some degree we all have baggage that keeps us from thinking objectively. Do you think you may share that problem with so many others?

Most definitely! And until we all share the basis of our opinions, it is difficult for others to understand our thinking. I find that those who have never had some of my experiences can't begin to understand why I feel as I do - and vice versa. I have learned that one who never had their citizenship or 'rights' questioned usually has no idea how degrading that experience can be. I have also been led to understand how the sharing of power with those that have been identified as unworthy is difficult for some. What is even more baggage in this country is that often 'worthiness' has been tied to skin color/gender. Objectivity is often in the eye of the beholder.

The only extremist groups in the U.S. that have made the news recently have been the black panthers voter intimidation tactics that were caught on tape. Of course the racist narcissist president and his cohort in crime holder refused to prosecute them.

The bottom line is that obama and the democrats in congress can't be trusted. They lie to our faces almost on a daily basis. They say that you have second ammendment rights, but it's all about power for them. They would just as soon remove all the guns from law abiding citizen hands and so only the thugs and criminals that make up the obama base have them. It would be their version of 'justice' for past wrongs of a previous generation.

obama said he would halve the deficit and he tripled it . he lied. he said he would close guantamano. he lied. he said that he wouldn't raise taxes. he lied. he said that his health care mandate would save money. he lied.

obama is a liar and only cares about getting more power over Americans. When he says something, believe the opposite.

Now we see the crux of the discussion. Uninformed individuals using media inspired false knowledge. Lets discuss the automatic issue first. An automatic weapon is a firearm that continues to fire with the press of the trigger ONE time. A semi-automatic weapon needs the trigger pressed each time a round is fired. Automatic weapons have been government controlled for years. When someone purchases the automatic (also known as a Class 3 firearm)weapon, they must meet SEVERAL criteria. The must apply to the BATF to receive permission to purchase the automatic firearm. Then they have to allow the Federal Government access to the weapon at any time. Please remove the thought of automatic weapon with assault weapon.
Next on the list is the dirty phrase, assault weapon. I got news for you folks, ANYTHING can be used as an assault weapon. If I poke you in the arm with a pencil, I just assaulted you with a weapon. The phrase is a bunch of media made up nonsense.
With regards to "high capacity magazines". Wether I have one thirty round magazine, or 5 six round magazines, or any combination, any person can be taught how to reload quick enough the time span between reloads is minor.
It was mentioned about meeting force with force. Nice common way of thinking. It matches the states definition. If someone punches you, you have the right to punch them back. If they shoot at you, shot at them.
If people would just learn to use the ever fading ability of common sense. It's not the law abiding citizen we worry about. It's the criminal element. The laws on the books are not being used. The same liberal individuals that want to ban guns, are the same ones that want lesser sentences for criminals comitting crimes with guns. Try enforcing the laws already in existence before throwing more out there.

S. Lindsey's picture

Where facts matter little and emotion is king.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

There is more agreement than disagreement regarding the Second Amendment. I have used my Second Amendment right to carry when necessary. I have worked in areas where it was known that illegal assault weapons were in the neighborhood. At one time in LA criminals had assault weapons that 'outclassed' the weapons carried by the officer on the street. There are Common Sense solutions to the problem of gun violence in America. The current proposals do not call for the confiscation of all guns in this country. I'm with the group who approve the background check; special permission for owning military automatic assault weapons ; limited capacity magazines and an easier path for getting help for the mentally ill. Most Americans do use common sense. Most Americans are law abiding.

Mrs. Gifford is alive because her perpetrator was stopped while reloading.

S. Lindsey's picture

...Can you or Obama guarantee my families safety by removing my AR-15 with it's 30 round mag? Can you guarantee that my family will never face such a weapon?

NO you cannot...so why do you and those like you want to disarm law-abiding citizens that give us a fighting chance?

btw- DM get the terminology correct please... Unless you have a Class III license you do NOT have a AUTOMATIC Assault Weapon. This is the problem with you guys... You don't even know what you are trying to ban.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

The threat level that you fear?

S. Lindsey's picture

A Burglar or (s) entering my house with a AK47 can you or this ban guarantee that will not happen?

If you can't and you can't then you are lowing my defensive capability without decreasing the Threat level. Thus you and this ban is placing my family in danger.

Can you or this ban protect my family in the event of a Natural disaster or a bio attack or pandemic?

No?

Then you and this ban are therefore placing my family at risk. A risk I will not accept.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

[Quote]A Burglar or (s) entering my house with a AK47 can you or this ban guarantee that will not happen?[/quote]

You are so right! Can you guarantee that not banning it will? The operative word, guarantee. Mr. Garlock has clarified, without denigrating, the nomenclature regarding guns. I feel very safe here in Fayette County. I feel the steps my neighbors and I have taken, with the guidance of local law enforcement helps me to live in peace. Sorry you are haunted by the vision of humans breaking into your home with AK47's. Keep yours loaded and by your side! Peace.

S. Lindsey's picture

[quote=DM]Can you guarantee that not banning it will[/quote]

YES.. with all things being equal...at least for the next 100 years.

Banning without confiscation will do nothing about the guns already in the hands of Criminals and if you add confiscation Criminals by their very nature will not comply. So it will achieve exactly nothing except to disarm the LAW-ABIDING Citizenry and remove the threat of a armed home owner.

This is where you, stone and the other gun control crowds make the logical fallacy that by banning guns from law-abiding citizens will somehow make everyone safer. It is not the CCP or AR-15 owner that is the problem it is the Criminal and the Criminally Insane among us.

Remember DM we do not have Asylums anymore to house the Insane/disturbed.. Why because Liberals like you said it was inhumane.

So you fixed a perceived problem and created another one.

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Agree: no confiscation

Disagree: Guarantee anything for the next 100 years. If you can, you should advertise as a financial investor!

Disagree: No one here has stated that banning guns from law-abiding citizens will make everyone safe. . Unless I missed that post. Please share.

Disagree: you know nothing about all 'liberal' thought, in particular my thought on treatment for the mentally ill.

<Cite>An informal fallacy is an argument whose stated premises fail to support its proposed conclusion.[1] The problem with an informal fallacy often stems from a flaw in reasoning that render the conclusion unpersuasive. In contrast to a formal fallacy of deduction, the error is not merely a flaw in logic.
Contents [show]
[edit]Formal deductive fallacies and informal fallacies
Formal fallacies of deductive reasoning fail to follow the rules of logic that guarantee a true conclusion follows given the truth of the premises. This is said to render the argument invalid.
Inductive fallacies are not formal in this sense. Their merit is judged in terms of rational persuasiveness, inductive strength or methodology (for example, statistical inference). For instance, the fallacy of hasty generalization, can be roughly stated as an invalid syllogism:
A is an X
A is also a Y
Therefore, all Xs are also Ys
While never a valid deduction, if such an inference can made on statistical grounds, it may nonetheless be convincing.</cite>
[edit]

S. Lindsey's picture

...or a comprehension issue..One or the other... Now think for a minute where that ..er went to.

You originally said..
[quote=DM]
Can you guarantee that not banning it will[/quote]

I said..

[quote=S.Lindsey]YES.. with all things being equal...at least for the next 100 years.[/quote]

You said:

[quote=Dm]Disagree: Guarantee anything for the next 100 years. If you can, you should advertise as a financial investor![/quote]

Note I said "with all things being equal"..There are enough guns in America for at least 100 years DM banning them like Diane Frankenstien wants to do to "draw down the supply" will have no effect. Guns are not like cars. They don't wear out..and can be easily rebuilt when parts fail.. A simple machine shop can fabricate most any part.

[quote=S. Lindsey]This is where you, stone and the other gun control crowds make the logical fallacy that by banning guns from law-abiding citizens will somehow make everyone saf<strong>er.</strong>[/quote]

You responded with:

[quote=DM]Disagree: No one here has stated that banning guns from law-abiding citizens will make everyone <strong>safe. </strong>. Unless I missed that post. Please share.[/quote]

Where did the ..er go DM? Everyone from the President on down is pushing that the ban will keep us saf<strong>er</Strong>. When in fact it will do no such thing. Crime will not go down in fact it has been shown that where guns are banned from private ownership violent crimes rises. So will a gun ban make us safer...not by a long shot.

[quote=Dm]Disagree: you know nothing about all 'liberal' thought, in particular my thought on treatment for the mentally ill.[/quote] Off on a tangent rant aren't we DM? Look up "deinstitutionalization" and see who has shut down the the State Institutions?

<cite>"Ideally, deinstitutionalization represents more humane and liberal treatment of mental illness in community-based settings. Pragmatically, it represents a change in the scope of mental health care from longer, custodial inpatient care to shorter outpatient care.</cite>

<cite>The process of deinstitutionalization, combined with the scarcity of community-based care, is also associated with the visible problems of homelessness . Between 30-50% of homeless people in the United States are people with mental illness, and people with mental illness are disproportionate among the homeless.</cite>

Facts are facts DM...

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Disinstitutionlized the treatment of mental illness . Fact: I do not have a reading disability. My opinion: you are a very insecure human being. Have a great day. ( and look at the possibility of ' all being equal' to base a premise.). And as many others are asking - where are Obama and Feinstein asking to ban ALL WEAPONS? The Senator, like many women in California - 'carries'!

S. Lindsey's picture

Dm you are if nothing else... entertaining.

If you can't back up your arguments DM why make them?

btw-Frankenstien does not carry anymore she gave up her permit... Sort of a hypocrite to try and ban almost all guns while carrying herself.. but then again most Libs are very good at telling the masses what's good for them while exempting themselves from it... http://www.theatlanticwire.com/politics/2013/01/dianne-feinstein-gun-lis...

Insecure??? I thought I was a uneducated rightwing religious bigoted homophobe?

Who knew I was just insecure...

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

Not my words - yours.

[Quote]Insecure??? I thought I was a uneducated rightwing religious bigoted homophobe?[/quote]

Not at bad job at self-identification.

S. Lindsey's picture

Have a good night there Dm....

"Whoever claims the right to redistribute the wealth produced by others is claiming the right to treat human beings as chattel."

-Ayn Rand

PTC Observer's picture

You didn't answer the question.

Do you agree that a universal truth is that we own our lives?

That no one else owns us as individuals?

Is this not a universal truth? That this is only dependent on the life span of the individual?

rolling stone's picture

[quote]Do you agree that a universal truth is that we own our lives?

That no one else owns us as individuals?

Is this not a universal truth?

That this is only dependent on the life span of the individual?[/quote]

Responses: Yes, yes, no, and yes.

PTC Observer's picture

I assume that you mean that someone can forcibly "own" you?

So, you conclude, wrongly, that it is not a universal truth?

So, this is the reason you answered no?

rolling stone's picture

Answering yes to that question would affirm "this is not a universal truth", so my answer "no" denied that "this is not a universal truth".

PTC Observer's picture

Got it.

Now, if you believe that it is a universal truth that we all own our lives, then do you believe that it is also true that our time is limited, therefore this time is valuable to us? I assume you would agree to this.

If so, then our labor is a conversion of our lives and the output of our labor is our property. Therefore, property is ours to own as it is part of our life. Property by rational extension is the accumulation and output of our life and our life is ours to own and no one else.

Do you believe this is also true?

rolling stone's picture

[quote]Do you believe this is also true?[/quote]

Without getting too wrapped up in semantics, sure.

Now I have to let you know that regardless of where this is headed, I do not think it is OK for me to shoot someone with a gun for taking my lawnmower.

Pages

Ad space area 4 internal

Sponsored Content

Opinion

At the Peachtree City Memorial Day ceremony on Monday, Mike King did a nice job of focusing attention on a few of our own who died far too young serving the rest of us.

Community

The Master Resilience Institute of Armed Forces Mission has announced the following community workshops as part of the 2015 “I Will Intervene Challenge.”

Sports

Gold Medal Training Camp with U.S. Olympian Ken Chertow in taking place this week at Wrestling U, 611 Hwy. 74 South in Peachtree City.

Lifestyle