Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

@aspvenom,

Quote:

Now you're doing another injustice separating science from philosophy like that

Did I do that? I thought I was making a claim about people using logical consistency more often in other fields of knowledge than in trying to construct a better moral concept.

Quote:

You think science doesn't use logical consistencies?

Do you think I am that naive?

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

OK, but what makes you think that I'm judging you?

1 Reply

@reasoning logic,

And as I said before everyone does construct a moral concept in decision processes based on different value preferences, and abstract value systems. Logical consistency can support two sides in cases of moral consideration. A matter of "better" or "worse" is a matter of one's own understanding of concept, and based on social accepted norms. By your own understanding I mean that which may differ in detail from mine, of what a prejudice or a rationalization is, for example, and of when one view is inconsistent with another. For example. you and I may end in disagreement over whether my position is a moral one, partly because of such differences in understanding, and partly because one is less likely to recognize these logically consistent but illegitimate grounds in himself than in others.
You're forgetting one big part of moral philosophy and that is empathy.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

I just used the opportunity to pass along humor. This thread needs some tension relievers, don't you think?

1 Reply

@aspvenom,

aspvenom wrote:

I just used the opportunity to pass along humor. This thread needs some tension relievers, don't you think?

Absolutely Cool

0 Replies

@BillRM,

Quote:

Sorry the constitution is the framework of the US form of government every damn word of it.

When the government no longer follow every damn word of it it is no longer a valid or legal government on it face.

That's interesting Bill. So every damn word must be followed, except the words that would say the 2nd amendment isn't the only amendment we should follow?
Congress has the power to lay taxes on guns.
Congress has the power to regulate gun commerce.
Courts have the power to rule laws restricting guns are valid.

1 Reply

@parados,

parados wrote:

That's interesting Bill. So every damn word must be followed, except the words that would say the 2nd amendment isn't the only amendment we should follow?
Congress has the power to lay taxes on guns.

Not on guns used for self defense. And not on any guns used by militiamen.

Otherwise the poll tax becomes Constitutional (and the pro-lifers can start taxing abortion).

parados wrote:

Congress has the power to regulate gun commerce.

When it comes to self defense guns, only to a limited extent.

And if we brought back the militia, their power to regulate the selling of military weapons to that militia would also be constrained.

parados wrote:

Courts have the power to rule laws restricting guns are valid.

Yes, but only according to the principals of Strict Scrutiny, Intermediate Scrutiny, and Rational Basis Review.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

Quote:

Not on guns used for self defense. And not on any guns used by militiamen.

Otherwise the poll tax becomes Constitutional (and the pro-lifers can start taxing abortion).

The poll tax is illegal because the 24th amendment specifically makes it illegal

Quote:

Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

I think your Constitutional scholar skills are lacking oralloy. Since there is nothing prohibiting taxes on guns, the taxation powers of the Congress takes precedence.

1 Reply

http://resources1.news.com.au/images/2012/09/29/1226484/107189-kids-shooting.jpg

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

That looks really exciting H2O. An hour of that and I bet their thighs are all a lather.

I bet the boys in Afghanistan would love to have those cushion mats to lie on and a little fluffy stand to steady their weapon with.

1 Reply

@spendius,

spendius wrote:

An hour of that and I bet their thighs are all a lather.

You into that sort of thing, spendi?

1 Reply

@H2O MAN,

H2O MAN wrote:

Liberal democrats have formed themselves a circular firing squad.

The great old mans party have formed themselves a circular firing squad against the liberal party of young men

1 Reply

@tenderfoot,

That's lame, please try again.

0 Replies

@H2O MAN,

It's awlright.

0 Replies

@parados,

parados wrote:

oralloy wrote:
Not on guns used for self defense. And not on any guns used by militiamen.

Otherwise the poll tax becomes Constitutional (and the pro-lifers can start taxing abortion).

The poll tax is illegal because the 24th amendment specifically makes it illegal

Quote:
Section 1. The right of citizens of the United States to vote in any primary or other election for President or Vice President, for electors for President or Vice President, or for Senator or Representative in Congress, shall not be denied or abridged by the United States or any State by reason of failure to pay any poll tax or other tax.

Section 2. The Congress shall have power to enforce this article by appropriate legislation.

The poll tax would be unconstitutional even if not specifically mentioned, so long as the right to vote were protected by the Constitution.

parados wrote:

I think your Constitutional scholar skills are lacking oralloy.

You know better than that.

parados wrote:

Since there is nothing prohibiting taxes on guns, the taxation powers of the Congress takes precedence.

The term "guns" is a bit too broad for accuracy here.

The Second Amendment prohibits taxes on military weapons bought and owned by militiamen.

Either the Second or Ninth Amendment (take your pick) prohibits taxes on guns suitable for self defense.

An exception would be allowed if it could pass muster with strict scrutiny. But I doubt any tax could do that.

1 Reply

NRA loses relevance as public ire turns to gun manufacturers - Rachel Maddow
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#50829055

also
http://www.nbcnews.com/id/26315908/#50829065

2 Replies

@RexRed,

RexRed wrote:

NRA loses relevance as public ire turns to gun manufacturers - Rachel Maddow

The Freedom Haters periodically salve their frustration over being prevented from violating people's rights by imagining that the NRA is no longer able to protect the Constitution. Sometimes they get extra goofy, and they go on TV and proclaim their delusions as if their delusions were actually true.

The Freedom Haters periodically cycle through various schemes to violate the Constitution, and the NRA blocks all of them. The idea that Constitutional protections of individuals can be skirted by scheming to eliminate gun manufacturers is nothing the NRA hasn't heard before, and the Freedom Haters will not get anywhere with their plotting and scheming.

1 Reply

@oralloy,

After the ratification by Pennsylvania the leader of the government, George Bryan, and his son, writing under the name Centinel attacked the Constitution as "the most formidable conspiracy against the liberties of a free and enlightened nation that the world has ever witnessed." The authors of the Constitution were alleged to be "aspiring despots" and would be branded "with the stigma of eternal infamy". The Constitution was designated a "spurious brat".

New York under George Clinton had little enthusiasm for it. New York City was in favour of ratification but not the rural part of the state. It went through by 30 to 27 after a great deal of argument by Hamilton, Madison and Jay who were all members of the chattering classes. The vote was said to be a "miracle". The fear of fragmentation and violence was the thrust of the argument for ratification as is the case now with European unification.

It delivered you all into the hands of lawyers and demagogues. Like sheep to the dip.

1 Reply

@spendius,

And I have been reading about this famed militia of yours in the 1812 debacle. The less said about them the better. Not wishing to get their feet wet they stood and watched whilst the regular troops were shot up and forced to surrender. It was a White Feather job. Its general resigned in disgust and the next one, appointed to get the militia to shape up, was fragged off the scene. A third, supposedly popped out of his skull with opium, had been in the pay of Spain and was more given to excuses than to action.

As Prof. Brinton Thompson says in Gateway to a Nation--

"These engagements, generally minimized by Americans, rank high in Canadian history. "

You obviously had rather romantic history teachers oralloy. That was the militia which was granted the right to bear arms.

2 Replies

@spendius,

There is nothing so pathetic as gentlemen in well-cut suits in barricaded rooms talking tough.

0 Replies

Another major school shooting today ... Newtown, Conn

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know