Do you suppose the families of the five dead people in Kentucky are celebrating

the Supreme Court's decision about guns?

There's general happiness in Gunland today, but I bet there's not much in that town.

Redstone

...

Who knew about the guy's plan two hours before it happened, and didn't call the police or warn the victims.

a loved one because someone's right to have a gun outweighed another persons right to live is not celebrating this decision.

Once dead, it can't be undone. The right to life should outweigh all other rights. What's more important than life? :shrug:

themselves to be "second-amendment defenders?"

You, I see, can understand the disconnect there.

Redstone

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

The scent of rat, or maybe it might be mole, just got really strong around here.

Redstone

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

tell those families why it was so important that the guy who killed their relatives be able to have a gun? I'm sure they'll be interested in hearing your reasons.

Redstone

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you think we should have a free press, now that press is a tool used by corporatist to promote war and fascism?

Should people be allowed to burn and destroy petroleum in any matter they choose, regardless of the health and environmental consequences?

Im just curious is all. Some people pick and choose rights (only allowing those with positive outcomes), some believe all rights should be permitted (despite negative outcomes), and some tend to think rights all should be allowed to be curtailed (to protect against negative outcomes). Is freedom overrated?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

There are a number of unenumerated rights, and those pending amendments (just because it isn't in the constitution, like "air breathing", does not make it not a right, and things like the right to quality Health Care may be looming on the horizon).

Personally I do not see something as written into the constitution as a guaranteed right (these can and have been repealed/curtailed), just as I do not consider something not in the constitution to not be a right (these have/will been amended).

"God Given" merely means currently supported, passed and signed (and perhaps awaiting repeal) in reality. The constitution and law is man written, not God given.


It is within that context I pose the question of "freedom". Often I find that which is an allowed freedom is that which is either generating revenue for an interest or not costing too much revenue. Our constitution and laws probably often evolve to meet that concept. But people continue to try to dictate this evolution based on their own conception and sacred idea of what freedom is, and how important it is in contrast to health and safety. I don't have much of a solid opinion personally (being a bit pragmatic and dynamic).

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I was asking people what their opinion on the issue of "freedom" is. Are rights (enumerated or otherwise) more important that public safety and their manifestations upon a society?

Im viewing rights and laws, therefore (to pose the question), as dynamic and subject to public and private demands (rather than sacred and universal throughout time).

Its a difficult question I think. A single right on two different societies, or in the same country at two different times can have drastically different consequences. Ive asked the question before but people are normally too caught up on the issue (and the current flare up that reminds of it) to unattach and look at it philosophically.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

I edited my last response before I saw it...

Let me say something about assuming a right will hurt a population...

I hope we can both agree that gun rights in certain hypothetical societies would cause negative consequences, just as gun rights in a Utopia would cause zero consequences. I believe that repealing gun rights in certain hypothetical societies would cause riots and damage lifestyles, just as doing so in others would not. The context the law or rights are being applied to makes a difference (and those societies change over time). A right is not universally good or bad, but can be both throughout time. It can be useful and needed at one time, and not at another (I am talking abstractly here, not about Gun Rights in the USA).

Rights involve trade offs, but those trade offs are dynamic and changing constantly. Should we therefore review rights more often to examine the trade offs (and thus consider adding new ones too like Heath Care rights)? If that is true, then should a written right no longer be consider the same as a religious edict (as some people do)? Further, if context and manifestations determine the validity of rights, which change, then should a country with non-homogeneous regions/contexts have rights more often determined locally (rather than federally)?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

:D

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Redstone

I do not believe there is a limit to how many tours one can do, and the age for enlistment and re-enlistment has been dramatically increased.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You obviously have no respect for private intellectual property.

Only a member of the inner circle would know then...

Probe my brain....

braaaaaaaaaaaaaaains

Ok, why waste your time here, since you have been rejected so many times? :D

It's Phun. I enjoy political discourse. I enjoy understanding opposing pov's.

I spend most of my time in legal blogs, mostly const. law. But I enjoy rowdy debate. I can enjoy DU, Little Green Footballs (the name that shall not be mentioned... but I just did), Wonkette, Feministing, etc.

It's all good.

Walking on eggs is a piece of cake compared with posting here. (Can I get a metaphor Duzy for that?) :rofl: :rofl:

but you would think it.

One can be a democrat, and support our candidate, without supporting that rubbish. For example, I think Kucinich would have been a DISASTER for the country. Is that heresy? OMG. Do I float?

snowball's chance of being elected...which after all is pretty much a prerequisite for actually accomplishing anything.
;-)

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

You already answered yourself. Don't you have better things to do than to engage in this kind of behaviour?

Above you claimed to be a police officer and a fireman; What, don't you believe in 'rule of law?' Don't you believe in intellectual property, and the right for private citizens to self-govern their private property?

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Why aren't you there right now?

thanks.

It's a volunteer army. When in college, fwiw, i was a (lord forbid) pacifist and never would have enlisted... but now...

I have served many years as both a firefighter and cop. But I doubt I will enlist (actually I would go in as an officer, since I have college + grad school).

What's your point? Fwiw, I don't SUPPORT the war. I realize there's a nice (silly) meme that goes if you support the war, why haven't you enlisted. I support abortion rights, but I haven't had one of those either :)

But it's kind of irrelvant anyway, since I DON'T support the war.

If they've banned you, then you've violated the rules.

String me up!!

"speak to power" is generally someone you just CAN'T talk any sense to?

Oh, and in case he's reading this: I've never been a policman or a fireman, as he claims to be, but I have been shot. My ownself, not my "friends."

I don't know if that confers any legitimacy on my opinions or not, but there it is.

Redstone

You are right, this person is a waste of time.

And in case you are reading, Mr. police officer fireman: http://www.army.com/enlist

Many have told me I have great hose skillz.

And again, I DO NOT SUPPORT THE IRAQ WAR.

for the (several)th time

I agree about the Truth to Power thang. Sounds like a Spike Lee Joint, but it's fun to speak in the progressive vernacular.

I am sorry to hear you have been shot. Good to see yer still around.

I hope to never get shot. Remember what Sgt. Esterhaus said "let's be careful out there"

I just know things as they are today aren't working.

There seem to be a lot of people walking around with guns killing innocent people. And the impact that has spreads to many other lives as well.

It's broken, and it needs to be fixed. I don't know what the solution is, but it can't be left the way it is today.

I just read a story about a man who shot the mother of his kids dead at a YMCA. And he did it in front of his little girl. Is his right to have a gun stronger than that little girl's right to have a mother? Is his right to have a gun stronger than that woman's right to live and raise her children?

It's broken.

Patrick Henry said a little something about it.

What is YOUR opinion? Have YOU weighed this? How do YOU reconcile conflicts?

If we just claim that something is an "American" concept or tenet, that is the same as defending morality because it is written in the Bible. The constitution is man made, not God given, and rights change, evolve, and disappear continually. I think its important for people who are pro-gun or anti-gun (or in favor of any rights) to both look at the entire concept of freedom and rights in society, their consequences and their justifications.

"Give me Freedom or Give me Death" is an interesting statement, because certain Freedoms can foster conditions for Death in the right environments. On the other hand, we can look at less "free" societies that have low murder rates, high levels of health and happiness (as rated via survey). If freedom is not the universal determinant (but merely one of the factors) of happiness, contentedness and fulfillment, then many Americans may of missed the boat.

but I think there has been some odd renumbering/reordering. Widdershins, I do not find myself in any significant disagreement with your own position. :-)

I got sidetracked by the freeper posts

Sorry I misread your post, if you saw my pre-edit reply.

Redstone

protect Americans' Second Amendment right to own firearms".

The sad thing is gun-grabbers who chanted ad-nauseam "2nd protects a collective right" are wrong according to the Constitution and wrong according to the Democratic Party.

As Jackie Gleason used to say, "How Sweet It Is!" :toast: :patriot:

Were families of those lost in 9/11 celebrating when we bombed Iraq?

:shrug:

The SCOTUS decision has nothing to do with the 5 deaths.

I would hope that the next of kin is wise enough and has the intellectual capacity to realize that.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

How many friends have you had killed? I'm not talking about in the line of duty as a police or fireman. Just every day Joes who do not have a job with high likelihood of dealing with violence and just was in the wrong place at the wrong time. Were they involved in some type of criminal activity? Domestic dispute? Road rage? How did it come to be that they were killed? I've never known a single person who ever got shot much less have several friends dead because of guns.

I abhor any death by gun violence but to arm everyone to the teeth and pretend like it is the 1800s at the OK Corral is just shortsighted and dangerous. I cannot trust you and your gun toting pals to have enough judgement concerning any of your guns to feel safe around you.

And you say it is unconditional, I say it isn't. The founding fathers were talking about an armed militia in a time when our country did not have a standing army to protect the new nation. If Tom Jefferson, John Adams and the boys could see what some people called necessary to "protect the country" they would be spinning in their graves. Talk about twisting an issue to fit the argument.

I don't know of a sole who wants to take guns away from people but I am a strong advocate of registering, licensing, testing and background checks for some measure of safety.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

claim to support, "I don't know of a sole who wants to take guns away from people" so I assume that includes yourself.

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

Do you suppose they're celebrating your exploitation of their loss?

These damn machines!! They kill people and refuse to take the blame for it!