AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

Tarantulas wrote:

I think "essential" means any freedom is essential.

Cool, I think my freedom to have my nukes is essential. So is my freedom to live in a nation with a consolidated database...

See how freedoms get "non-essential" real fast?

Quote:

The quote works better without that word, so assume it's not there.

To me it's just rhetoric. Freedoms are exchanged, not added and subtracted. For every freedom there is an opposite but usually not equal freedom.

Quote:

Okay, you don't think we should register swords. How about boot knives and throwing knives and all other kinds of knives used for fighting? Let's create a national database of the owners of those weapons. Okay?

It wouldn't bother me, but I do not see a compelling reason for it.

0 Replies

Lightwizard wrote:

Oh, my gawd -- don't let cjhsa get hold of any weapons!

Huh? Why not? What did I do?

0 Replies

This will surely piss everyone off. Smile

Go here.

http://www.richsalter.btinternet.co.uk/cks2/index2.html

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Tarantulas wrote:
I think "essential" means any freedom is essential.

Cool, I think my freedom to have my nukes is essential. So is my freedom to live in a nation with a consolidated database...

See how freedoms get "non-essential" real fast?

And that's what we like to call exaggeration. No one said anything about nukes.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Okay, you don't think we should register swords. How about boot knives and throwing knives and all other kinds of knives used for fighting? Let's create a national database of the owners of those weapons. Okay?

It wouldn't bother me, but I do not see a compelling reason for it.

The point I was going after was if we are going to register guns because they are deadly weapons, then why not register all deadly weapons? Swords, fighting knives, longbows, crossbows, and whatever else we can think of. Either register everything and treat it all the same or register nothing.

I don't agree with a national database with everyone's name in it, and so far such a thing hasn't come to pass. Actually I don't see a compelling reason to register guns at all. The background check is fine, but the records should be shredded after they come back approved and before I leave the store with my new purchase.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

This will surely piss everyone off. Go here.

http://www.richsalter.btinternet.co.uk/cks2/index2.html

That pisses me off and I didn't go past the opening screen. I have four of the little darlings at home.

0 Replies

I'm so sorry to hear that Tarantulas. Wink

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

I don't know. Personally, I see no problem with having some paperwork with each gun purchase, but some do and their rights need to be respected as much as anyone elses. they have elected officials to government that feel the same way as they do and it seems they are getting good representation.

Centroles wrote:

You somehow see no problem in the government being able to detain people indefinately without a warrant, presenting any evidence, holding a trial, or at the very least telling the person being detained for years on end why they've been locked up (as the patriot acts allow us to do).

Yet you think that somehow, having to present an ID before buying a gun is a violation of freedom.

Would you feel differently I wonder if the man happened to be a known and wanted islamic fundamentalist terrorist who illegally snuck into the US?

Did you even bother to read what I said?

Quote:

Personally, I see no problem with having some paperwork with each gun purchase

First of all, what gun shows are you referring to? In New York you most certainly cannot just go purchase a handgun. We have pretty strict handgun laws in place. The people of New York decided that would be best for them. I personally feel the license requirements are a bit strict, but I can see the need for them.

As for your reference to the Patriot act, I agree with it as long as the intentions are honorable. Keeping a Taliban prisoner in detention who was caught on the battlefield is one thing. Most liberals are afraid that the goon squad is going to come knocking on their door some night and drag their neice off to never be heard from again and that is plain stupid.

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

And that's what we like to call exaggeration. No one said anything about nukes.

It's deliberate exaggeration to debunk an axiom. Not all freedoms are essential and thusly they need to be upheld on their own merit, and not with an absolute axiom.

Quote:

The point I was going after was if we are going to register guns because they are deadly weapons, then why not register all deadly weapons? Swords, fighting knives, longbows, crossbows, and whatever else we can think of. Either register everything and treat it all the same or register nothing.

I've no qualm with registering everything. But I do not see them as being equal in our society merely because they are deadly.

Some bring more of a sociatal cost than others, some less of a societal benefit (e.g. knives have a greater societal benefit than do guns).

Quote:

I don't agree with a national database with everyone's name in it, and so far such a thing hasn't come to pass. Actually I don't see a compelling reason to register guns at all. The background check is fine, but the records should be shredded after they come back approved and before I leave the store with my new purchase.

I'd rather the reverse, forget the background check and have each weapon traceable.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Tarantulas wrote:
And that's what we like to call exaggeration. No one said anything about nukes.

It's deliberate exaggeration to debunk an axiom. Not all freedoms are essential and thusly they need to be upheld on their own merit, and not with an absolute axiom.

Not all freedoms are essential? That doesn't sound like the America I know and love. I think it's essential to protect the freedoms we already have. They should all be essential. Since we don't have the freedom to own a nuke, that couldn't be an "essential" freedom.

Craven de Kere wrote:

I'd rather the reverse, forget the background check and have each weapon traceable.

What good is tracing a gun after it's been used in a crime? If you already have the gun, you probably already have the shooter, right? Or am I missing something here?

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Not all freedoms are essential?

It's not a difficult concept Tarantulas, there are many bad freedoms (e.g. freedom to take what you want).

Quote:

That doesn't sound like the America I know and love. I think it's essential to protect the freedoms we already have. They should all be essential. Since we don't have the freedom to own a nuke, that couldn't be an "essential" freedom.

So you are revising the axiom to only include existing freedoms? That's much better than the original axiom.

Quote:

What good is tracing a gun after it's been used in a crime?

I suppose it would be worthwhile to be able to know who was involved in the crime and how the weapon was aquired.

Quote:

If you already have the gun, you probably already have the shooter, right?

Says who? I'd like the database to also contain balistic signatures so that the weapon can be traced even when it is not in the hands of law enforcement.

Quote:

Or am I missing something here?

I think so. I see the ability to determine what weapon killed someone and the background of the weapon as a boon to law enforcement.

Knowing how the weapons used in crimes are reaching the criminals can help curb the crimes.

0 Replies

Well...I'm hoping that the bullshit phase of the discussion will run out soon -- and that we deal with the essential question that is asked in my preliminary comments.

Let's take the major issues one at a time...and just see where the conservatives were.

#1....the war of Independence.

As I see it, the conservatives...the tories...were arguing that we were vassels of a liege lord, George III of England...and that he and his parliament could tax us as they wished.

The conservatives argued that we should stay a colony of England.

In my opinion...the conservatives were on the wrong side of that issue.

Does anyone want to challenge that?

Let's discuss it -- or let's put it to bed as determined.

0 Replies

Craven de Kere wrote:

Tarantulas wrote:
Not all freedoms are essential?

It's not a difficult concept Tarantulas, there are many bad freedoms (e.g. freedom to take what you want).

Taking what you want is not a freedom.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
If you already have the gun, you probably already have the shooter, right?

Says who? I'd like the database to also contain balistic signatures so that the weapon can be traced even when it is not in the hands of law enforcement.

Ballistic signatures change. After the gun has been fired a few times, the barrel wears down and the markings on the bullet are different. So-called "ballistic fingerprinting" has never been shown to identify a single murder weapon. It doesn't work.

Craven de Kere wrote:

Quote:
Or am I missing something here?

I think so. I see the ability to determine what weapon killed someone and the background of the weapon as a boon to law enforcement.

Knowing how the weapons used in crimes are reaching the criminals can help curb the crimes.

How does that help curb the crime?

And what are you going to do if you find out how the criminal got the gun? Make a law against whatever method he used? Criminals don't obey laws anyway - that's why they're called criminals.

0 Replies

But Frank you are lumping classic conservatives in with neo-conservatives and your thesis assumes conservative' is defined now as it was more than 200 years ago. It isn't.

Before I can debate a premise that "conservatism' has always been on the wrong side, we first need to define it then vs now.

But having said that, I think the debate over whether to put ones family, life, fortune, and property at risk in face of almost overwhelming odds would have been a legitimate debate. As it turned out, it was mostly the wealthy land owners who most supported England. They had the most to lose.

Some might say that those who have the most to lose should be the ones to decide.

In that particular case, I am glad the majority chose to take the risk for a better life and a better world which is how it all turned out. I am glad Abraham Lincoln was willing to expend all his political capital and risk his legacy and destiny by issuing the Emancipation Proclamation.
I am glad there were politicians and police officers willing to risk political capital, their legacy and destinies to get us through the stormy years of desegregation. I'm glad Ronald Reagan had the will to expend political capital, his legacy, and his destiny to stare down Communist Russia.

Isn't it odd that it is now the conservatives who seem to be willing to expend political capital and risk their legacy and destiny toward hope of a better and safer world, and it is the liberals who most insist on the status quo? Which is right? We'll know when the next generation of history books are published.

0 Replies

Wow, a lot happened in the two hours I was in class.

Tarantulas, your argument is a logical fallacy.

Exactly what freedom would be infringed upon by having a national database in the manner i described it?

I ask you bluntly, exactly what about my specific proposal do you disagree with? What aspect of it do you think isn't prudent? Why?

I don't want to hear a widely discredited slippery slope theory that isn't even applicable to this situation, if you can't point to any negative effects of this specific proposal, there's no basis to make this analogy.

0 Replies

Foxfyre wrote:

But Frank you are lumping classic conservatives in with neo-conservatives and your thesis assumes conservative' is defined now as it was more than 200 years ago. It isn't.

Before I can debate a premise that "conservatism' has always been on the wrong side, we first need to define it then vs now.

Oh holy crap! Now I'm agreeing with Foxfyre! I really need to check for some serious drug interactions going on here.

http://www.dharma.com.tr/dkm/images/sinema/airplane.jpg

"Looks like I picked the wrong week to quit sniffing glue."

0 Replies

I was hoping somebody would break the ice, so it wouldn't appear that i'd just taken an opportunity to jump him. Neither is it reasonable to suggest that all tories were conservative, nor all rebels liberal. Robert Morris, the financier who did his level best to save the hopeless finances of the Continental Congress could hardly be characterized as a liberal. Arthur Schlesinger, Sr. made his real claim to fame as an historian of the Americans by his work in demonstrating how many previous assumptions about "the pioneers" had been fallacious when extended to the population as a whole. He did a very careful study and analysis to demonstrate how it was that so many merchants (traditionally described as conservative, and with good reason) supported the revolution. In many respects--reacting as they did to the molasses duty, and the Stamp Act, as well as the new stringent enforcement of existing acts by the Royal Navy after the end of the French and Indian War--Americans, a great many of them, were fighting to preserve the status quo ante of 1750.

It would be harder to demonstrate that there were "liberals" among the loyalist, and such evidence would of necessity be anectdotal, however, one such anectdote does occur to me. Franklin's bastard son had gone to London with Franklin when he was an agent for several of the colonies before the Lords of Trade. His son spent most of the impressionable period of his youth in England, and was very kindly treated--his bastardy precluded any such kindness in the "City of Brotherly Love." Although demonstrably the educational product of Benjamin Franklin, and in many of his expressed opinions, a liberal by the standards of the day, William Temple Franklin's gratitude to the kindness he experienced in youth lead him to espouse openly his loyalty to the crown, at a time when that might well have cost him his life. Certainly his appointment as a Royal Governor at age 32 mitigated in favor of loyalty--but that would all be part and parcel of that gratitude.

I cannot accept a premise that all Tories were conservative, and the inference that all Rebels were liberal.

0 Replies

cjhsa wrote:

DL, you are saying that all the guns that my Dad owns should be registered, even though they aren't currently and don't need to be, in order to give them to me? That's ridiculous.

It's not ridiculous. Any gun that is in a person's posession, should be registered. Each gun should have an owner's name attatched to it, just as a car does. Someone should be responsible for that firearm at all times. Just because your dad didn't have to register those guns back in the day is no reason to not register them today. It comes down to responsibility and accountability.

0 Replies

Quote:

Oh holy crap! Now I'm agreeing with Foxfyre! I really need to check for some serious drug interactions going on here.

It isn't fatal Joe unless you make a practice of it. Smile

0 Replies

Tarantulas wrote:

Taking what you want is not a freedom.

Yes it is. It is the converse of the freedom to keep what is yours. While I'd agree that it's not a noble freedom it does represent a freedom. Thankfully not one recognized by law.

And so it goes, there are some liberties that should not be granted by society.

Quote:

Ballistic signatures change. After the gun has been fired a few times, the barrel wears down and the markings on the bullet are different. So-called "ballistic fingerprinting" has never been shown to identify a single murder weapon. It doesn't work.

Indeed, there are many hurdles to overcome. But that crime has not yet been solved through balistic fingerprinting has as much to do with the novelty of this approach and the infancy of the databases created as it does to do with the technological difficulties.

Quote:

Craven de Kere wrote:
Knowing how the weapons used in crimes are reaching the criminals can help curb the crimes.

How does that help curb the crime?

The crimes, plural. Measures that can increase the odds of determining culpability act as a contributing deterrent in our system of crime and punishment.

Quote:

And what are you going to do if you find out how the criminal got the gun? Make a law against whatever method he used? Criminals don't obey laws anyway - that's why they're called criminals.

It depends on how he got it. Maybe it could take down an individual who is supplying the illegal market. Reduction of sources of supply would be a positive thing.

Incidentally despite the comment's rhetorical value, to say "criminals obey laws" is just as true as your "criminals don't obey laws" quip.

0 Replies

McGentrix wrote:

McGentrix wrote:
I don't know. Personally, I see no problem with having some paperwork with each gun purchase, but some do and their rights need to be respected as much as anyone elses. they have elected officials to government that feel the same way as they do and it seems they are getting good representation.

Centroles wrote:
You somehow see no problem in the government being able to detain people indefinately without a warrant, presenting any evidence, holding a trial, or at the very least telling the person being detained for years on end why they've been locked up (as the patriot acts allow us to do).

Yet you think that somehow, having to present an ID before buying a gun is a violation of freedom.

Would you feel differently I wonder if the man happened to be a known and wanted islamic fundamentalist terrorist who illegally snuck into the US?

Did you even bother to read what I said?

Quote:
Personally, I see no problem with having some paperwork with each gun purchase

First of all, what gun shows are you referring to? In New York you most certainly cannot just go purchase a handgun. We have pretty strict handgun laws in place. The people of New York decided that would be best for them. I personally feel the license requirements are a bit strict, but I can see the need for them.

As for your reference to the Patriot act, I agree with it as long as the intentions are honorable. Keeping a Taliban prisoner in detention who was caught on the battlefield is one thing. Most liberals are afraid that the goon squad is going to come knocking on their door some night and drag their neice off to never be heard from again and that is plain stupid.

New York is a pretty liberal state McG. Check the laws in colorado. YOu don't even need a license or any ID.

I read exactly what you said. You defend the politicians that advocate letting anyone they want buy a guy, without so much as presenting an ID in gunshows and such places.

I am simply asking how you can defend that position. How can you argue gun rights for everyone (I don't think wanted criminals or terrorists should be able to walk into a gun show and pick up a gun without so much as presenting an ID) when you clearly oppose even the most basic human rights, the right to know why you're in jail,.

0 Replies

AMERICAN CONSERVATIVES...on the wrong side of everything!

Related Topics

Quick Links

My Account

able2know