Guns and Stuff.


2ndRateMind
 Share

Recommended Posts

1 hour ago, lostinwater said:

:) 

i read a book recently about an old Jewish man who observed that as long as you plagiarize enough times from enough unique sources, it transforms plagiarism into research!

Along the lines of national days....actually, this week is National Peace Officer's Week.

In the hope of somewhat atoning for the extreme side of the gun control movement, i want to personally thank @mirkwood and @Just_A_Guy - and any other law/peace officers i am not aware of - for all the times they've bravely had to use firearms to help keep all the snowflakes like me who are floating around out there safe.

Thanks, it has been my pleasure for the past 21 years.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, Vort said:

What do you suppose a "right" is, 2ndRateMind? Do you think a "right" is something granted by government?

Yes.

There is some talk of rights as being inalienable and ordained by God. But even a cursory reading of history shows that rights are far from inalienable. And how their divine provenance can be proven, when we cannot even prove God exists anyway, defeats me. So this seems to be just something one either believes or one doesn't.

What we can be sure of is that in a democracy, rights are the legal expression of the will of the people to grant each other privileges, and enforce those privileges with the power of the nation state.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, mrmarklin said:

We love freedom and hate tyranny above all.

There is nothing inconsistent between loving freedom, hating tyranny, and having sensible restrictions on the civilian ownership of firearms. Indeed, it may be argued that they are entirely compatible, since if one is dead by random mass killing, it does not matter that much how much one loves freedom or hates tyranny, as one can't do anything about it. That death is the ultimate loss of freedom and triumph of tyranny.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

8 hours ago, Carborendum said:

Thank you for a well thought out, quite logically connected discourse.  Here's my response.

1) I don't see the need to separate into levels of "highest good".  It makes no difference in the concept of the "why" we have a second amendment.
2) You're working with this idea that the logic train goes in one direction only.  But that is not the history of how the 2nd Amendment came to be worded as it is.  When we run through the history, we begin to understand that it is a parallel right, rather than a straight line.

Thank you, Carborendum, for a well thought out, quite logically connected discourse.  Here's my response:

On 2) Regardless of the historical development of the Second Amendment, I think we need deal with the wording as it currently stands*, rather than as it once was. Nevertheless, I do not quite see how the quotes you have so helpfully supplied contradict the interpretation I gave. I find them entirely compatible with the notions: 

On 1) That the security of the free State justifies the well regulated militia, which in turn justifies the right of the people to keep and bear arms. And that if this chain of justification is broken, the right of the people to keep and bear arms is a necessary casualty. There is no indication that the right of the people to keep and bear arms is independent of these justifications (or 'parallel', to use your terminology). Otherwise, why bother to mention the security of the state and a well regulated militia, at all? Why not just simply and clearly insist that 'The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'? Which is how most Americans understand the amendment, anyway.

Perhaps you can indulge me by clarifying why you think differently.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Quote

*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.

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, mirkwood said:

They have been, however the onus lies with you.  You showed up swinging and didn't like the pushback.

Indeed not. I have attacked ideas, not people. 

To attack a person is an ad hominem logical fallacy, since a person can be objectionable in every way, and still be perfectly correct in what he or she says.

Ideas, on the other hand, are legitimate fair game for debate. And if everyone abides by this basic academic convention, the result is more light shed and less heat generated.

I have now said all I intend to say in my defense on this matter. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Yes.

There is some talk of rights as being inalienable and ordained by God. But even a cursory reading of history shows that rights are far from inalienable. And how their divine provenance can be proven, when we cannot even prove God exists anyway, defeats me. So this seems to be just something one either believes or one doesn't.

What we can be sure of is that in a democracy, rights are the legal expression of the will of the people to grant each other privileges, and enforce those privileges with the power of the nation state.

Best wishes, 2RM.

I don’t live in a democracy.  We have a constitution.  You also don’t need to establish an existence of God to have inalienable rights.  They exist as a result of my existence, however I got here.  

2 hours ago, 2ndRateMind said:

There is nothing inconsistent between loving freedom, hating tyranny, and having sensible restrictions on the civilian ownership of firearms. Indeed, it may be argued that they are entirely compatible, since if one is dead by random mass killing, it does not matter that much how much one loves freedom or hates tyranny, as one can't do anything about it. That death is the ultimate loss of freedom and triumph of tyranny.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Absolutely.  That’s why a State has no business removing your ability to preserve your life. That’s the ultimate tyranny.  

 

1 hour ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Indeed not. I have attacked ideas, not people. 

To attack a person is an ad hominem logical fallacy, since a person can be objectionable in every way, and still be perfectly correct in what he or she says.

Ideas, on the other hand, are legitimate fair game for debate. And if everyone abides by this basic academic convention, the result is more light shed and less heat generated.

I have now said all I intend to say in my defense on this matter. 

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

 

Untrue.  When you intentionally choose topics intending to provoke or choose words that generally result in a negative response you’re a troll.  

You Sir, are a troll.  You come on an LDS page and start a string of topics that generally invoke a negative response and use insulting language.  Your intent here is to stir things up.  You do so will feigning innocence.  I’d have banned you from the start.  Your net contribution is negative.   You won’t last long.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Hmmm. The two are not mutually exclusive. Indeed, some might even think that a constitution exists to protect a democracy.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Sure.  And some think rocks talk to them.  They are wrong, too.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Grunt said:

... inalienable rights....exist as a result of my existence, however I got here.  

Ummm, where exactly? Are they written on our hearts? Are they stamped on our intellects? Or, are they some social contrivance, that springs into existence the same moment a community is formed? Or maybe, they are woven into the very fabric of the universe in some way, such that they are indisputably real?

As for being inalienable, then I think that if you examine history, you would find your average Saxon peasant, or Russian serf, or Caribbean slave, or Arab hareem concubine, might have good reason to doubt you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Ummm, where exactly? Are they written on our hearts? Are they stamped on our intellects? Or, are they some social contrivance, that springs into existence the same moment a community is formed? Or maybe, they are woven into the very fabric of the universe in some way, such that they are indisputably real?

As for being inalienable, then I think that if you examine history, you would find your average Saxon peasant, or Russian serf, or Caribbean slave, might have good reason to doubt you.

Best wishes, 2RM.

 

Your use of force to remove my rights doesn't negate their existence.  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Grunt said:

Your use of force to remove my rights doesn't negate their existence.  

Well, of course not, if those rights are enshrined in law, and enforced by the nation state. But if they aren't, I submit rights are no more than a wistful pipe-dream.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, 2ndRateMind said:

Well, of course not, if those rights are enshrined in law. But if they aren't, I submit they are no more than a wistful pipe-dream.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Good for you.  Add it to the list of things you are wrong about.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

38 minutes ago, Grunt said:
Quote

Well, of course not, if those rights are enshrined in law, and enforced by the nation state. But if they aren't, I submit rights are no more than a wistful pipe-dream.

Add it to the list of things you are wrong about.

And your reasoning to arrive at this conclusion might be....?

Let me try to help. Take the UN Declaration of Human Rights, a document that seems to me to be totally reasonable, optimistic and advantageous if universally implemented. But, though it was published in 1948, there still seem to be plenty of people in the world thoroughly alienated from the rights it proposes. So what good is it, to them?

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, Grunt said:

That’s why a State has no business removing your ability to preserve your life. That’s the ultimate tyranny.

This is why I got a permit - because I believe that no one should die because they weren't allowed to defend themselves.  I've never felt like I needed a gun, but the carry permit is, in essence, my way of recording the fact that there's one more person who believes in the right to self defense.

1 hour ago, askandanswer said:

@zil is this your attempt to be hip? (Very cute post by the way:) ) 

Huh?  Mr. Hippo just got to page 5 and realized we had yet to discuss "stuff", so he wrote that up and asked me to post a photo.  And yes, I must agree, he's kinda cute.  That's probably why I let him use my pens.

Edited by zil
Link to comment
Share on other sites

@Grunt...  You are feeding him. 

The simple fact is his offenses have been repeatedly documented.  He chooses to ignore his part and blame everyone for responding to him.

The simple fact is he does not want to protect kids because if he did he would be willing to consider all things that might help.  Instead he is fixated on Guns (While accusing us of being so fixated) any idea, any suggestion or any thought that might protect kids that is not gun removal he clearly ignores.  This is clearly evidence in the title of this thread.  Note it is not titled "Keeping Kids safe" or something like that.  Instead it is "Guns" with the whole kid protection part being included in the "and Stuff."  This clearly shows his priority even though he will deny it 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, estradling75 said:

@Grunt...  You are feeding him. 

The simple fact is his offenses have been repeatedly documented.  He chooses to ignore his part and blame everyone for responding to him.

The simple fact is he does not want to protect kids because if he did he would be willing to consider all things that might help.  Instead he is fixated on Guns (While accusing us of being so fixated) any idea, any suggestion or any thought that might protect kids that is not gun removal he clearly ignores.  This is clearly evidence in the title of this thread.  Note it is not titled "Keeping Kids safe" or something like that.  Instead it is "Guns" with the whole kid protection part being included in the "and Stuff."  This clearly shows his priority even though he will deny it 

I put him on ignore.  That's the first time I've used that feature here.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, Grunt said:

I put him on ignore.  That's the first time I've used that feature here.

Ha Ha! I promise not to put on ignore any of you who pose me any civil question I have no answer to. I don't see that as conducive to learning anything from the forum.

Best wishes, 2RM.

Edited by 2ndRateMind
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.
Note: Your post will require moderator approval before it will be visible.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
 Share