EDITORIAL: Packing a gun in Starbucks

Just speaking for myself, here:
my security preparations have been adequate for many years.
I desire that my FELLOW CITIZENS be personally well armed
and that recidivistically violent criminals be removed from contact
with the decent people and permanently ISOLATED.

I wish to restore the personal freedom that prevailed
thru out America in the early 1900s. It appears that the USSC
is in the process of making that happen.





David

They wore wigs because they lacked viable shampoo. Perhaps, we ought to return to making soap from rendered animal fat and lye.

If you clarify this first. Wow! You are so angry that your sentence structure is falling off the page . . . but . . .I suppose you think that is an insult. Take this as an example: You know, more afraid than a 5'3" woman, won't even go into a mall/stores w/o a gun. What?

Then you must admit that you have no credibility because of your intense rightist partisanship.

Hey, you are not the arbitrator of anything, let alone reality.

Without the left, there is no right and vice versa.

Now, the left abolished slavery, gave women the vote and ended the war in Vietnam. What has the right done?

This is from winter edition 20120 of Colloquy, reporting on a the work of David Hureau, a graduate student at Harvard's Multidisciplinary Program in Inequality and Social Policy.

"Hureau geocoded . . .data from the Boston Police Department to show that over the past 30 years,about 4.5 percent of Boston's 28,000-plus street segments (corners and blocks) produced 75 percent of the city's shootings. About 88.5 percent of the city's street segments didn't experience a single shooting in that period."

So, nearly 90% of the city of Boston went without shootings for more than a quarter of a century.

Hureau commented on his own work, saying, "Even for us as researchers, who aware of the concentration of crime, that was pretty staggering."

The conclusion? Stay away from those places where shootings are apt to occur so no weapons are needed, but, I suspect that David and mporsche already do.

Have a nice day plainoldme.

David,
Why is it fine for you to insult the left constantly and it is never alright for the left to say to you that you are wrong when you very, very wrong?

Are you aware of how many people think the SC is out to lunch? That the most recent decision magnifying the personhood of corporations has riled both the left and the right?

Why does the right claim any moral high ground when there has never been any significant social change or positive legislation authored by the right?

Isn't the abolition of slavery moral? Isn't the enfranchisement of women moral? What is moral about pollution? What is moral about going about armed?

I hope that u will accept my congratulations on a good post,
devoid of personal insolence and addressing the general topic.
My response: It is fine for u to insult the right in your posts,
but in conversation with another member it is not acceptable
to go off topic evaluating him personally or hurling insults.
(For instance telling a member that he reminds u of a demented bum
from a lunch counter who died, or saying that I am in a nursing home.
[Tho I am not, it is none of your business if I were.]
That is OFF TOPIC qua carrying a gun in Starbucks.)

If u do so, then u degrade intellectual discourse to the level of a food fight.
I am unwilling to participate in that.
That can be avoided by focusing on the topic rather than on the member to whom u r addressing yourself.




No. I have not taken a survey. Regardless of that,
we have inherited rights from the deal (the social contract)
made by the Founders, the US Constitution which is the supreme law of the land.
Opinions about lunch have no effect on those inherited rights.



I am not aware of any significant riling on the right.
I was riled, and outraged in the extreme by the earlier 2003 decision
that raped the First Amendment 4 different ways in upholding McCain's law.
Now the First Amendment has gotten unraped, by the CITIZENS UNITED case.


The reasons for that r as follows:
Being on the right means being conservative relative to the social contract, the US Constitution;
i.e., conservative = orthodox, rigidly non-deviant from the terms of the deal, non-cheating.
Deviating from those constitutional terms is not OK.
Liberalism is deviating from those terms. It is cheating.
Conservative means keeping rigidly unbending in the enforcement of a rule,
or law, or agreement or some paradigm; accordingly, conservatives conserve
that rule or agreement or paradigm (e.g., a common style of dress).

Liberal means deviating from some rule, or law,
or agreement or some paradigm, and not taking it too seriously.

For instance,
if men are playing poker n one rakes in the pot
alleging that he has a flush, when he has 4 clubs and a spade,
and when challenged on this behavior, he declares
the liberal motto: " hay, that 's CLOSE ENUF; don 't be
too technical; don 't split hairs; just don t be a ball buster, OK ?
I had a fight with my cousin, yesterday I got a flat tire,
I belong to a minority group and my left foot stinks, so gimme a break n deal the cards."

Hence, he advocates the position that logic shoud be SUBORDINATED to emotion
and that thay shoud take a LIBERAL VU
of the rules of poker because his sob story OUTRANKS
the technical rules requiring 5 cards of 1 suit for a flush.


"Conservative" means ORTHODOX.
"Conservative" means non-deviant.
"Liberal" means deviant.
Without having deviated from something no one can be liberal
because the essence of liberalism is turning away from something.

For instance, if u attend a formal banquet in a black tuxedo
with red sneakers, u deviate from the paradigm of formal dress,
thereby taking a liberal vu thereof. If u attend it in your underwear,
then u take a MORE LIBERAL interpretation of that paradigm.
If u attend it naked, then u apply a radical interpretation
( "from the root" ) of that paradigm.

Whether liberalism is good or bad
depends upon WHAT the liberal is veering away from.
Like when Boris Yeltsin veered away from communism, that was a GOOD thing.

Liberalism includes ANY kind of deviation,
in any direction of 360 degrees of arc + up n down.

There is no logical semantic constriction on liberalism
that it can only exist in the direction of collectivist-authoritarianism a/k/a socialism.
Deviation can be in the opposite direction or in any direction.

We conservatives have "moral high ground" because, by definition,
we adhere rigidly to the terms of the deal with no deviation;
i.e., we play it straight like an accountant who is 100% accurate.
If a conservative starts to deviate, the he is no longer non-deviant
and he thereby becomes an ex-conservative and a new liberal, to the extent of his deviation.
Your question implies an assumption that there is supposed to be "social change".
I don 't find that in the Constitution, tho it is not prohibited either.
As a conservative American, I do not see any reason for social change
that I can think of at the moment, except social change in attitudes
returning to those of older America when people commonly carried weapons openly,
without attracting any particular attention.
I will not address what u said about "positive legislation" unless u define it more precisely.





That depends on the circumstances.
Breaking open the prisons and setting them free is not moral,
but liberating the slaves of the commies and the nazis was moral.
Accepting a Cuban refugee whose raft makes it to Miami is moral.




The enfranchisement of women is moral; children also, any citizen
who is held to comply with the law has a moral right to vote.




Sometimes a polluter is within his rights to do so,
e.g., while driving thru rural farm country, I 've seen a lot of trash,
rusted old farm equipment & kitchen appliances scattered around
on their property, visible from the road. Its ugly, but its the owner's decision
qua how he will run his property, the same as whether a lawyer keeps a cluttered desk,
or whether an artist can draw ugly pictures. Freedom is moral.




The ability to defend your life from the predatory violence of man or beast is moral,
and every predator that is dispatched is a bonus for the rest of us
who r no longer exposed to danger from him.
The dispatcher is morally entitled to a tax credit for services rendered.


I enjoyed your post, Plain. Thank u for it.
Do u feel like revealing your first name? Mine is David.
It feels awkward calling u "Plain".





David

I have to say that despite having earned a degree in political science, despite having spent 40 +/- reading about politics, I have never seen anyone define liberalism or conservatism in that way,

So, what do you do about the liberal tenets and the philosophies of the men who wrote the Constitution?

So, participants, what do you think of David's definitions?

When I was an undergraduate, the accepted popular definition of conservatism was a person who advocates that the government that is closest protects the citizen best (in other words, an advocate of states' rights). A liberal on the other hand was a person who believed the government that was furthest protected the citizen best.

Now, on the surface, that sounds like a liberal believes in federalism and the will of the state is subordinate to the will of the central government.

I feel David's definition of liberalism is without basis. Liberalism is not based on emotionalism. Heavens!

However, everyone makes a decision to be either a liberal or a conservative then rationalizes said decision later.

I wonder how David feels about some people's reaction to sarah palin, the oft heard, "she's me! a regular person!" That is an emotional reaction . . . but. . . is it liberal?

I also wonder how anyone on the right can reconcile the movement that sprang from the left to guarantee that teachers majored in the subject they wished to teach rather than in education.

I also wonder how anyone feels about the boondoggle that was pulled by the right on the entire Baby Boom generation: that the Civil War was fought over states' rights when it was fought over the containment, if not the abolition of, slavery.

Again, THANK U for being civil.
This is not a new concept, nor originated by me.
Either there IS, or is NOT deviation from a contract, or any body of rules.
Depending on the presence or absence of deviation
it is liberal or conservative.


As to a contract that u might enter next week,
u and the parties with whom u contract
may disagree as to whether it shoud be interpreted liberally or not.
("Hay, u promised to do thus and so, but u only did THIS much; what are u trying to pull?"
"Hay, C'mon, lady, don't be so TECHNICAL; that 's close enuf; be reasonable, gimme a break.
I had a death in the family last week and I belong to a minority group!")

How exactly shoud it be carried out?
to what degree of precision?
That is the question.
How much error is your accountant allowed in his reckoning?

When u DON 'T DO what u promised to do,
how closely shoud u be held to account?






Thay were liberal, indeed, radical, as to the standard
of Monarchy and the Divine Right of kings.
THAT is the standard from which thay turned away.
I support them in that.
The American Revolution was a libertarian revolution.
The writings of the Founders are rife with cravings and aspirations for personal liberty.
The Revolution was led by the Sons of Liberty.
I support that. I love laissez faire capitalism.
Knowing that the relationship between domestic jurisdiction of government
and personal freedom is INVERSELY PROPORTIONAL,
the Founders crippled government 37 different ways in the Bill of Rights,
thereby elevating the glory of individual freedom.





David

Conservatives can be emotional too.
I felt very happy when I voted for Barry Goldwater.

I did not say that conservatives have no emotions,
but if a conservative lets his emotions move him to cheat,
then he stops being a conservative.





David

That is procedural and incidental.
It does not go to the root of the difference.





David

So, you would forbid the question, which is implied by your statement. Closing debate is not the answer.

All that stuff you write about contracts is wrong: the government has made a contract with the governed.

So, how do you feel about Constitutional AMendments. It would seem that such a thing would be anathema to you.

How about the 3/5th compromise . . . part of the Constitution . . . having been amended? Is that allowable under your unique view?

Finally, are you a practitioner of any religion? Were you raised in a religion? In some ways, you sound both like a Catholic that seeks out Latin masses and a Calvinist at the same time.

Ah.. it's the "no true Scotsman" fallacy.

Of course, that means there are no true conservatives David, not even you.

No. I did not imply that.
There is nothing rong with discussing it.





No; u have that turned around backward.
By a contract among themselves, the citizens brought into existence, a government
which was invested with certain designated authority,
and not more than that, the same way that owners of real estate
can hire a property manager and a security guard.

Government has no authority,
except that conferred on it by said political/social contract.
Anything beyond that is a USURPATION, the same as a bank clerk taking home samples from the vault.





Not if thay were good amendments; I approve of the first ten, with enthusiasm!
Article 5 makes this process legitimate; it is explicitly part of the deal.
Amendments can be good or bad, depending on their subject matter.
If an amendment adopted communism or nazism, it woud be bad, in my vu.
I thawt the 18th Amendment was horribly unAmerican,
to control so personal a decision as what a citizen can ingest.
That also applies to anti-drug laws and their execution.






It was and it is; my vu is not unique.



I have not been in a church for about 30 years,
but I know that spiritual matters exist and I am concerned with them.
I accept the description of Deepak Chopra, M.D.
that most people believe that we r human beings with occasional spiritual experiences,
but we r spiritual beings with occasional human experiences.
I belong to a group of survivors of death www.IANDS.org in addition to medical doctors
researching death of the human body and its aftereffects.
I am influenced by the principles drawn from their experiences.


How about U ?







In theory, yes, but I rejected Catholicism when I was around 6. I have never been a Calvinist.
I 've heard that it is severe; I support freedom and hedonism.

As Richard Bach puts it: "we are the otters of the universe."





David

I detest the idea of people carrying guns. I have never been in danger on the streets of Detroit or Boston although, in many ways, I have greater potential of becoming a victim than other posters here, namely the men.

Women are generally advised against carrying either a gun or a knife as such weapons have the potential of putting them in greater danger.

Now, reading David's reply to porsche, I have the feeling that, despite his claim to never want to violate the rights of others, he would probably insist that I and every other member of this forum, carry a gun.

I have tried to demonstrate that there is no need for a weapon. But, David insists that people need one at all times. (My sons mock the fact that there is still a law in MA the dictates women must be escorted to church by an armed man!)

I firmly believe that if two rights are in conflict one is not a right. What about my right to walk down streets where no one carries a gun?

Now, a coworker, an obviously gay man, told me today that one of our customers threatened his life. The customer called the store and told the young man that he would kill him if he could. I suspect that David would say this man is obviously unbalanced . . . but . . . imagine a cadre of glenn becks having assumed authority over towns, even states. Would such duly elected authorities praise this man because he is a homophobe and see him not as a threat but as a upright citizen and allow him not just to be free but to be free to carry a gun?

Had this customer been armed, would my coworker be alive to tell the tale?

The one place I normally ever go i.e. Baltimore in which the idea of carrying a gun would have the most appeal is the one place you'd get in the most trouble if ever caught at it.

The most messed-up looking people I ever see in DC or NY at least look like they came from this planet and those places don't really scare me at least in daylight, while the same is not true of Baltimore.

I see it hasn't changed since I was there in the early 60s, stationed at Ft. Mead, Maryland.