Rafael Norma
Well-Known Member
- Joined
- May 28, 2007
- Messages
- 1,201
While AMERICA enjoy smoking weed, #Mexico has more than 60,000 dead people
-
Discuss politics - join our community by registering for free here! HOP - the political discussion forum
The gun lobby is deranged
- Thread starter Dawkinsrocks
- Start date
Werbung:
“Who has an arsenal in their home? Raise your hands... Do you need all of those? Why? God willing, no one will seek to use one someday for evil purposes.” It’s not a matter of whether or not I need them, I am given the right by the 2nd Amendment to own my “arsenal.” I don’t always buy guns just because I need them; is everything you buy a “need” that is essential for bodily sustenance? To quote Alan Ladd in Shane, “A gun is a tool, and it’s as good or as bad as the man using it.” The 2nd Amendment isn’t about hunting or personal self defense per se, it is to ultimately provide protection for law-abiding citizens against a tyrannical government and leaders who usurp their authority. As for “who needs semi-automatic weapons in their basement?” again, it’s not a matter of whether or not we “need” them. We have the right to own them, and actually they are useful. It seems yhat a lot of people are under the misunderstanding that automatic and semi-automatic are synonymous. That is by no means the case, and automatic weapons are already banned with-out a class C permit. Automatic means that you pull the trigger once, hold it down, and the gun fires until you release the trigger or you run out of ammo. Semi-automatic (as big rob said) means you pull the trigger, and it fires one round, and chambers another. To fire another round, you must release the trigger, and pull it again.
If you dearly want an assault rifle, I don't trust you.You are wrong...But I love that..
Unfortunately, the case studies that exist strongly suggest that “gun free zones” don’t work. Banning all guns might work, and laying off the bans might work, but it’s very clear that having specific areas that are labelled as “gun free zones” fail to deter gun violence.We’re more likely to see a decrease in the incidence of violence by propping up our social safety nets and reforming our criminal justice and penal systems. This would cut down on crimes of desperation (assault, robbery, gang activity…these represent most gun violence), and would be far more likely to make a dent in our violence problem than stricter gun control.
Unfortunately, real solutions to our violence problem would require stronger social safety nets, which would require that we pay for them, and will likely incite outrage from some of my conservative friends... Just as there are justifiable complaints about many liberals’ automatic opposition to guns, there are justifiable complaints about knee-jerk ideological responses from conservatives when trying to make progress on social issues. There’s to much evidence that gun bans don’t do anything, so let’s not do that. There’s also evidence that making serious efforts to decrease the levels of despair and hopelessness in impoverished neighborhoods would result in less violence.Ultimately, I am asserting that the entire discussion that’s occurring in the mainstream media is nothing short of idiotic and unsubstantiated. We’ve got bigger discussions we need to be having, and which would be far more likely to yield actual results.
GenSeneca
Well-Known Member
Yet you considered it a conspiracy theory to point out the slippery slope of gun bans.
Your addition did not create any gray area... Your wife was wrong to initiate the use of force against that man, she had no Right to do so, but the man she attacked did have a Right to defend himself against her use of force. None of that changed by your joining the fray. What you see as gray, are overlapping tiles of black and white, separate them and you get a much clearer picture.
I had to look it up and I thank you for sharing this!
The "Trolley problem": Person A can take an action which would benefit many people, but in doing so, person B would be unfairly harmed. Under what circumstances would it be morally just for Person A to violate Person B's rights in order to benefit the group?
Right away we'll note that two different concepts (ends and means) are being equated by two more unstated premises (Altruism & Collectivism) and a third unstated conclusion, so let's look at the content of this question as a logical equation:
Assumed Premise 1: Collectivism = The rights of the many trump the rights of the few
Assumed Premise 2: Altruism = Individuals must sacrifice for the great good of the collective
Assumed Conclusion: The collective good trumps the rights of the individual
(All of which is unstated in the question but assumed by it)
Question: How many people must benefit before it's moral to murder one innocent person?
Ends: A greater good is achieved.
Means: Murder.
Altruist Conclusion: When the good of the many outweighs the rights of the few, the action is moral.
The intentional murder of innocent people can never be morally justified but this "problem" tries to do just that.
It's always immoral to violate the individual rights of others - Period. So, regardless of the circumstances, it would never be moral for person A to violate the individual rights of person B in any way. An individual would have to be using the unstated premises and conclusion in the above equation to seriously consider the act of intentionally violating the rights of others, much less the murder of innocent people, as ever being morally justifiable.
You helped me to learn something new today... Hopefully our conversation has brought you some benefit as well, I do prefer mutually beneficial exchanges.
Lagboltz
Well-Known Member
This is the way I look at the issues brought up in this thread.
Primates are social animals from the earliest days. Survival of primates depended on the survival of the clan. The evolution of the primates brought about deep instincts that if the individual is to survive, the clan must survive, and these individual instincts became embedded in his brain to provide the individual's role in the survival of his clan.
In the past few thousand years those instincts have been abstracted to moral codes and government laws which support today's mega-clans: the entire country. In field tests it was shown that if a monkey was given a bounty he would share what he couldn't use with others. Is he generous? That is one way of looking at it, but deep down his instincts are for the survival of his fellows.
Through fMRI, it was shown that if a monkey was forced to be distressed in some specific manner, certain areas of his brain would be activated. If that monkey witnessed another being distressed the same way, those same brain areas would be activated. The interesting thing is that empathy for others was strongly wired to his own feelings. These are the types of instincts that allow a unity of the clan.
One thing I see in this thread is the concept of the individual forcing harm on another individual. Those moral issues can be obvious most of the time. What has not been discussed here as much is the idea of the clan as a whole having a virtual force via the individual clan instincts. The government (clan) codifies the rules that lower primates were only instinctually aware of.
As I see it, when people try to divorce themselves from the clan by saying the government is using force to make me pay taxes, or put rules that limit my freedom, those people are actually outliers from the natural instincts that hold the clan together. Evolution tells us we should be focused on what it takes for the survival of the country and not the rights of individuals. The country should outlast the individuals.
That is why I am concerned about climate change and heavy weapons and anything else that has potential to diminish the country. I can't help it. It is in my brain wiring. My logic side tells me differently. Why should I care about climate change or anything else that will destroy the world. That will come about long after I'm gone.
Primates are social animals from the earliest days. Survival of primates depended on the survival of the clan. The evolution of the primates brought about deep instincts that if the individual is to survive, the clan must survive, and these individual instincts became embedded in his brain to provide the individual's role in the survival of his clan.
In the past few thousand years those instincts have been abstracted to moral codes and government laws which support today's mega-clans: the entire country. In field tests it was shown that if a monkey was given a bounty he would share what he couldn't use with others. Is he generous? That is one way of looking at it, but deep down his instincts are for the survival of his fellows.
Through fMRI, it was shown that if a monkey was forced to be distressed in some specific manner, certain areas of his brain would be activated. If that monkey witnessed another being distressed the same way, those same brain areas would be activated. The interesting thing is that empathy for others was strongly wired to his own feelings. These are the types of instincts that allow a unity of the clan.
One thing I see in this thread is the concept of the individual forcing harm on another individual. Those moral issues can be obvious most of the time. What has not been discussed here as much is the idea of the clan as a whole having a virtual force via the individual clan instincts. The government (clan) codifies the rules that lower primates were only instinctually aware of.
As I see it, when people try to divorce themselves from the clan by saying the government is using force to make me pay taxes, or put rules that limit my freedom, those people are actually outliers from the natural instincts that hold the clan together. Evolution tells us we should be focused on what it takes for the survival of the country and not the rights of individuals. The country should outlast the individuals.
That is why I am concerned about climate change and heavy weapons and anything else that has potential to diminish the country. I can't help it. It is in my brain wiring. My logic side tells me differently. Why should I care about climate change or anything else that will destroy the world. That will come about long after I'm gone.
You are given the right to serve in a militia. Go do it!
Gipper
Well-Known Member
You can make a drunken mob of lynchers whom any disciplined troops would wipe out in five minutes, however, by obeying the death-merchants you serve. Heil Netemyahu!
That is not what the Supreme Court has stated.
Obviously. Who appointed and owns them?
They were confirmed by the Senate...which is elected by the people.
Under a gerrymandered system, asd you know, which suits the Republicans.
This just shows you have no idea what you are talking about. How exactly do you "gerrymander" an entire state? After all, Senators are elected statewide.
Because, obviously, unlike civilised countries, you let your politicians fix it. You've got yourselves into a position where it is more important to please a (gerrymandered) Republican electorate of right-wing nutters than appeal to ordinary people. If you don't know this you need to go back to school.
Werbung:
I think you are missing the point....you can argue that House districts are gerrymandered -- and get no argument from me for the most part. However, the Supreme Court nominees are confirmed by the US Senate. Each state gets two Senators, and they are elected statewide -- ie Florida elects two of them, and the entire state votes of them.
Your assertion here is this is somehow gerrymandered....meaning that your assertion amounts to claiming that the boundaries of states are essentially drawn to ensure the election of one party. The sheer absurdity of such a claim is comical.
As for your childish claim of "going back to school" -- perhaps you might want to actually learn while in school (which by all indications you still are in) how the American electoral system actually functions.
Similar threads
