Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > No Guns Allowed

No Guns Allowed (Page 7)
Thread Tools
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 11:46 AM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
As long as you aren't directly hurting someone else, your choices are just as important as any other individual's.
With that reasoning you could argue that arresting people for DUI without being involved in an accident also infringes upon their right: they are not hurting someone else, they are »just« endangering others.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 11:54 AM
 
You have a right to carry your gun just about everywhere that no restrictions are in place (schools, courts, etc) and it doesn't matter if you are walking by a target range or forrest packed with deer. The right exists never the less.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:07 PM
 
Just want to drop in to say the past few pages have been interesting reading, folks.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
By your assessment then, no form of punishment by the judicial system is allowed then because every punishment dished out is a suspension of rights, either temporarily or permanently.
Not quite.

First off, the distinction between revocation and suspension is non trivial.

Secondly, the issue of punishment, if properly handled, is the exception which proves the rule. Rights come from society... if not literally, practically, because it's society which sets up the framework wherein they're respected (or not, as the case may be).

If you are officially removed from society, the rights which come from being part of society are subject to suspension for the duration.

To be clear, those things need to be reinstated upon release. Failing that, then yes, those things aren't really rights. This would then include things which are explicitly stated to be rights, seeing as we tell felons they don't have them anymore upon release. Wouldn't be the first time we ****ed shit like that up.

Similarly, I would say the only punishment which should allow the suspension of rights are ones where the person gets incarcerated. Lesser punishments shouldn't infringe on rights, and if they do, it's government overreach, or the right in question isn't really a right.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Just want to drop in to say the past few pages have been interesting reading, folks.
We can fix that.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
We can fix that.
Please, no more besson posts
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:22 PM
 
I saw this on YouTube. This place is the opposite of the OP cheese shop.

     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:30 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Similarly, I would say the only punishment which should allow the suspension of rights are ones where the person gets incarcerated. Lesser punishments shouldn't infringe on rights, and if they do, it's government overreach, or the right in question isn't really a right.
What exactly would this lesser yet non-rights violating punishment be? All forms of current lesser punishment are similar violations. They restrict or track movement, they can infringe upon privacy or freedom of choice, they can forcibly separate you from your property.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Please, no more besson posts
These sorts of things just happen.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:40 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
These sorts of things just happen.
Yeah, so do gun deaths, but neither should be acceptable. Keep your besson in a gunsafe, unloaded.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
What exactly would this lesser yet non-rights violating punishment be? All forms of current lesser punishment are similar violations. They restrict or track movement, they can infringe upon privacy or freedom of choice, they can forcibly separate you from your property.
It's tough for me to give specific answers to non-specific examples.

The property one is specific though. Property "rights" are a sham. You don't get to own property. The state lets you pretend you do as long as you stay a "good boy". You act up, it's asset forfeiture time.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:48 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Yeah, so do gun deaths, but neither should be acceptable. Keep your besson in a gunsafe, unloaded.
besson posts are the price of freedom
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
besson posts are the price of freedom
Being the communist I am, I say the cost is too damn high. Regulate him.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:51 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Being the communist I am, I say the cost is too damn high. Regulate him.
The situation we have now is due to imperfect regulation. Just like Comcast.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 12:55 PM
 
Alright, this joke has ended. We're derailing good convo here.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 01:04 PM
 
Oh... you're in my thread now, buddy!

You get a derail! And you get a derail!
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 01:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
No, you don't have the right to move in whatever manner you see fit, there are plenty of regulations and restrictions in place which are (for the most part) designed to protect yourself and others from endangering someone's rights. Put another way, you don't have to wait for someone to violate your rights (e. g. by driving drunk and T-boning your car), it suffices that the other person is DUI.
In your DUI example you are arguing details of the law when we seem to agree in principle. There is no question to me that if you are an objective threat that it justifies restricting that person's right to drive. That just leaves the question of defining the objective treat. I personally think that the way DUI standards are handled is flawed but that to me isn't relevant to this discussion.

I don't think BadKosh and you are saying something different in substance, it's just that you spin it in a different way. You have no right to a driver's license, you have to right to obtain a driver's license (as long the rules and restrictions do not discriminate). So if you fail the driving exam, it's not that the state is infringing on a right that you have. I think this is where BadKosh is coming from.

And to go back to the topic at hand, I think this way to think about the right to move freely is indeed similar to the right to bear arms. I think it's foolish to believe that this implies a right to (literally) bear arms everywhere without regulation, and to expect that a Target is the same as an active hunting ground in a park.
I was just attempting to clarify my position. I realize I may be arguing semantics here, but I don't really disagree all that much with how driver's licenses are actually handled. Like the DUI example, I may have points of disagreement on some of the details but in principle I mostly agree with it. My issue is how it is framed. It is in practice treated every bit as a right as guns are. In principle, in my view, it absolutely should be considered a right because of the reasons I mentioned. Yet, it is called a privilege by the states and most people buy that. I don't.

If you truly consider it a privilege and not a right then do a thought experiment: Imagine if a state revoked all driving "privileges" from all citizens in the state (you can grant an exception for drivers of emergency vehicles) and imagine all of the implications of that. Better yet, since it is not a right imagine that happening in all states in the entire country.

The only reason people buy into the privilege thing is that in general when someone loses their license it is for a reason most of us can agree with. Let the state start refusing licenses because they have set a limited number of drivers allowed on the road, or let them set criteria that must be met to justify your "need" and for you to "prove" that you meet those criteria, or let them just start refusing licenses for no stated reasons. See how much of a "privilege" people think it is then.

I don't mean to harp on this issue, but...it bothers me.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
It's tough for me to give specific answers to non-specific examples.

The property one is specific though. Property "rights" are a sham. You don't get to own property. The state lets you pretend you do as long as you stay a "good boy". You act up, it's asset forfeiture time.
Or forget to pay your rent property taxes to the state.
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 01:43 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
With that reasoning you could argue that arresting people for DUI without being involved in an accident also infringes upon their right: they are not hurting someone else, they are »just« endangering others.
The disconnect there is the lowering of cognitive ability, being drunk and getting behind the wheel makes you a hazard and inevitably will harm others, it's just a matter of time.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 02:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The disconnect there is the lowering of cognitive ability, being drunk and getting behind the wheel makes you a hazard and inevitably will harm others, it's just a matter of time.
So because you are statistically more likely to hurt someone driving drunk, its ok to punish people for that?

Hmm. Guess what the global statistics say about the likelihood of people getting hurt when they have guns.

On a more addressable note, can you be arrested for being drunk with a firearm anywhere? If so, does it actually happen?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
Cap'n Tightpants
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Oct 2014
Location: Shaddim's sock drawer
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 04:09 PM
 
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
So because you are statistically more likely to hurt someone driving drunk, its ok to punish people for that?
Driving impaired will harm someone else eventually, it's just a matter of time.

Hmm. Guess what the global statistics say about the likelihood of people getting hurt when they have guns.
That guns don't harm people, people do. Don't drive while drunk, don't carry a firearm while drunk. Both are sound practices.

On a more addressable note, can you be arrested for being drunk with a firearm anywhere? If so, does it actually happen?
Yes, it depends on the state, but it's usually considered reckless endangerment or culpable negligence, and it is a felony, and yes, though not as frequently as DUI because people who carry are generally more responsible with their guns than the average driver is with their car.
"I have a dream, that my four little children will one day live in a
nation where they will not be judged by the color of their skin,
but by the content of their character." - M.L.King Jr
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 05:12 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
...people who carry are generally more responsible with their guns than the average driver is with their car.
No, that's not true. People who carry are know to frequently get drunk, run outside and fire into the air yelling YEEEEE HAWWWWW!!!
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 06:19 PM
 
Originally Posted by Cap'n Tightpants View Post
The disconnect there is the lowering of cognitive ability, being drunk and getting behind the wheel makes you a hazard and inevitably will harm others, it's just a matter of time.
I objected to your specific wording, because no, you won't necessarily hurt someone if you are lucky. And the distinction is important, because if I see you drunk driving while I'm on the road, I don't have to prove to someone that you actually hurt me or damaged my property. We as a society decided that the mere increase in risk suffices to make DUI a punishable offense.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 06:24 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
I personally think that the way DUI standards are handled is flawed but that to me isn't relevant to this discussion.
My point was not to argue that I fully support the way DUIs are handled (that depends on too many variables anyway), but rather that we accept and support restrictions on topics surrounding driving as an incarnation of the right to travel even on the basis of potentially infringing someone else's rights.
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
If you truly consider it a privilege and not a right then do a thought experiment: Imagine if a state revoked all driving "privileges" from all citizens in the state (you can grant an exception for drivers of emergency vehicles) and imagine all of the implications of that. Better yet, since it is not a right imagine that happening in all states in the entire country.
I think you are way overstretching the analogy here.
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Let the state start refusing licenses because they have set a limited number of drivers allowed on the road, or let them set criteria that must be met to justify your "need" and for you to "prove" that you meet those criteria, or let them just start refusing licenses for no stated reasons. See how much of a "privilege" people think it is then.
Let us stay a little closer to the topic at hand.* With driving, we accept a whole bunch of rules and regulations, e. g. that on public roads we have traffic rules, that you have to register and insure your car, and it is clear that you don't have the right to park anywhere you'd like on the property of a business even if you have a driver's license and insurance. Where does this analogy break down with respect to concealed and open carry when you are on someone else's property? Arguably, the right to travel is at least as fundamental as the Second Amendment.

* Also because I don't think most people perceive having a license as a privilege, but as that is a matter of perception we'd get caught up in a discussion when we don't really disagree.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 28, 2015, 08:22 PM
 
Very interesting headline to our discussion. Almost ties the discussion about property rights and discrimination together, with added relevance since its at a gun range.

Gun range's ban on Muslims draws fire | Fox News
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 08:53 AM
 
Muslims should be allowed at gun ranges....as targets.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 10:50 AM
 
BadKosh, you are a moron.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 11:54 AM
 
Still being an immature name calling liberal stooge?
Seems many folks here agree.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 03:54 PM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
Muslims should be allowed at gun ranges....as targets.
Gotta vehemently disagree with you here.

Badkosh, that's racist vitriol. Please stop making us look bad - you aren't helping. When Besson calls you a moron and he's right, perhaps we need to reevaluate our message.
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 03:56 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Please stop making us look bad - you aren't helping.
Who is he making look bad? I consider him a lone loon.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 04:03 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Who is he making look bad? I consider him a lone loon.
Perhaps, but you are one of the more (most?) insightful, clear headed liberals on here. It's tough to present an ideology when those among that ideology bastardize it for hate and bigotry. Especially when the "lone loons" on the left have their views based on the lowest common denominator of the "other side" and fuel the "na na na the left are all communists and the right are all racists" stereotypes - of which we've done a great job of keeping out of this thread to date.

Ultimately, It feeds the cycle that is wrecking our country.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 06:15 PM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Perhaps, but you are one of the more (most?) insightful, clear headed liberals on here. It's tough to present an ideology when those among that ideology bastardize it for hate and bigotry. Especially when the "lone loons" on the left have their views based on the lowest common denominator of the "other side" and fuel the "na na na the left are all communists and the right are all racists" stereotypes - of which we've done a great job of keeping out of this thread to date.

Ultimately, It feeds the cycle that is wrecking our country.

I think the cycle is fueled by people that think that the us vs. them is a liberal ideology vs. a conservative ideology. Unfortunately, there seem to be many Badkosh's out there that are blind and would rather invest themselves into America's greatest sporting event: team liberal vs. team conservative.

We obviously see many things differently, but I don't think you are wrecking the country, and I hope you feel the same way about me. What is wrecking the country is an elite oligarchy. You would probably suggest different remedies, and perhaps be more inclined to include or isolate the government as being the bigger contributors to perpetuating this current norm rather than the Koch Brothers or MegaCorp X, but at the end of the day, no matter how you feel, both are the same basic entity with the same basic interests and motivation.
     
Snow-i
Professional Poster
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Maryland
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 29, 2015, 08:14 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
I think the cycle is fueled by people that think that the us vs. them is a liberal ideology vs. a conservative ideology. Unfortunately, there seem to be many Badkosh's out there that are blind and would rather invest themselves into America's greatest sporting event: team liberal vs. team conservative.

We obviously see many things differently, but I don't think you are wrecking the country, and I hope you feel the same way about me. What is wrecking the country is an elite oligarchy. You would probably suggest different remedies, and perhaps be more inclined to include or isolate the government as being the bigger contributors to perpetuating this current norm rather than the Koch Brothers or MegaCorp X, but at the end of the day, no matter how you feel, both are the same basic entity with the same basic interests and motivation.
Wow Besson.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2015, 08:34 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
Gotta vehemently disagree with you here.

Badkosh, that's racist vitriol. Please stop making us look bad - you aren't helping. When Besson calls you a moron and he's right, perhaps we need to reevaluate our message.
It also had a laughing icon in front to tip off the more intelligent that it was humor. Again opinion stated as fact. Besson too easily falls into his emotion driven posts that seem to go on for decades, but I don't have to agree with them. I parse through the posts and when I see what appears to be faulty arguments, or old wives tales used as facts I will chime in. Part of the problem is the approach to solving problems/discussions is how you perceive the situations, and how your priorities work against them. Liberals and conservatives think differently. Heck, I don't consider Besson a moron, just too tied up in his liberal mindset to think clearly.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2015, 10:43 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It also had a laughing icon in front to tip off the more intelligent that it was humor. Again opinion stated as fact. Besson too easily falls into his emotion driven posts that seem to go on for decades, but I don't have to agree with them. I parse through the posts and when I see what appears to be faulty arguments, or old wives tales used as facts I will chime in. Part of the problem is the approach to solving problems/discussions is how you perceive the situations, and how your priorities work against them. Liberals and conservatives think differently. Heck, I don't consider Besson a moron, just too tied up in his liberal mindset to think clearly.

Dude, you're a ****ing moron.

The smiley face does not even approach making that funny, you are just backpeddling now to save face, stop lying and be honest rather than making matters worse by lying in such a transparent manner.

That you think that intelligent people connect with emoticons better than not-so-intelligent people makes things worse as well, because that is also a pretty moronic thing to say. I don't think you'll find emoticons in academic journals and dissertations.

Stop being a moron.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2015, 11:15 AM
 
So, its not funny BECAUSE YOU don't think its funny? Perhaps you really don't have a sense of humor. Quit trying to derail the discussion. LYING? Where do you get that BS from? Where have I lied? YOUR pathetic opinion stated as fact again?

You stated " I don't think you'll find emoticons in academic journals and dissertations." So just WHERE do you think you are?
     
The Final Dakar
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2015, 11:42 AM
 
Originally Posted by Snow-i View Post
It's tough to present an ideology when those among that ideology bastardize it for hate and bigotry. Especially when the "lone loons" on the left have their views based on the lowest common denominator of the "other side" and fuel the "na na na the left are all communists and the right are all racists" stereotypes - of which we've done a great job of keeping out of this thread to date.

Ultimately, It feeds the cycle that is wrecking our country.
A person has to come to accept that this is a minority opinion through time and experience. I personally know almost no one here agrees with him most of time, so it makes the aneurysm he's trying to give me a little less likely.

More importantly in a news cycle where outrage is the emotion looking to be stoked, I have to take a breath and find a way to write off some of these posts else I'll have an aneurysm.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2015, 11:45 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
So, its not funny BECAUSE YOU don't think its funny? Perhaps you really don't have a sense of humor. Quit trying to derail the discussion. LYING? Where do you get that BS from? Where have I lied? YOUR pathetic opinion stated as fact again?

You stated " I don't think you'll find emoticons in academic journals and dissertations." So just WHERE do you think you are?
You are such a mess, I don't even know where to begin.

Nor do I want to.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2015, 11:47 AM
 
Originally Posted by BadKosh View Post
It also had a laughing icon in front to tip off the more intelligent that it was humor.
As a total dumbass myself, I presumed that smiley referred to what preceded it, because that's how smileys are used by everyone.

Likewise, laughing at your own joke breaks one of the cardinal rules of comedy.

If you need to indicate something is a joke, you put a after, or to be even more clear, "j/k".
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Jan 30, 2015, 12:46 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
As a total dumbass myself, I presumed that smiley referred to what preceded it, because that's how smileys are used by everyone.

Likewise, laughing at your own joke breaks one of the cardinal rules of comedy.

If you need to indicate something is a joke, you put a after, or to be even more clear, "j/k".
You are right. I was lazy and had to do some work stuff ASAP.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2015, 12:11 AM
 
@smac

This may seem like a dopey question, but can you give me some examples of the things which should be considered privileges?

FWIW, I kinda like the idea there aren't any, so I'm not trying to "gotcha" here, I only want to better understand where you're coming from.
     
subego  (op)
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2015, 12:22 AM
 
Would one way of phrasing your position be instead of rights and privileges we have inalienable rights and "conditional" rights... or something along those lines?

An example of "conditional" being you need to demonstrate some form minimal competency in driving before being allowed to exercise the right... or something along those lines.

The RTBA would be in the "inalienable" category, as no competency test is required.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 1, 2015, 07:33 PM
 
Isn't anything not covered by the Geneva Convention an inalienable right, and everything else is conditional? In that most other rights can be revoked if you are convicted of a crime. I suppose in a place with the death penalty then you have zero inalienable rights since they can all be revoked under certain conditions.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2015, 01:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
@smac

This may seem like a dopey question, but can you give me some examples of the things which should be considered privileges?

FWIW, I kinda like the idea there aren't any, so I'm not trying to "gotcha" here, I only want to better understand where you're coming from.
Privileges granted by whom? The very idea of "privilege" implies permission, and that someone or some entity is in charge of us granting this permission.

This counter to what I believe the purpose of government is, and counter to what the US government was supposed to be in principle.

So yeah, the answer is no I do not believe that there is anything that should be considered a "privilege" granted to us by our rulers. The very idea is disgusting. This is probably why it bothers me so much that it is so widely accepted that getting in your car and driving yourself in order to exercise your liberty to pursue your happiness for the sake of your life is a privilege you get from state bureaucrats.
     
BadKosh
Professional Poster
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Just west of DC.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2015, 01:18 PM
 
Follow the money.
     
besson3c
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Mar 2001
Location: yes
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2015, 01:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by smacintush View Post
Privileges granted by whom? The very idea of "privilege" implies permission, and that someone or some entity is in charge of us granting this permission.

This counter to what I believe the purpose of government is, and counter to what the US government was supposed to be in principle.

So yeah, the answer is no I do not believe that there is anything that should be considered a "privilege" granted to us by our rulers. The very idea is disgusting. This is probably why it bothers me so much that it is so widely accepted that getting in your car and driving yourself in order to exercise your liberty to pursue your happiness for the sake of your life is a privilege you get from state bureaucrats.

This idea that we are actually free is a strange fantasy.

We need privileges granted to us for all sorts of things, and this is as it should be, because we are basically wolf packs. Without each other we are pretty useless as a species. Some of us like to think that we are independent, but we are not, and thus as a group we need leaders, rules, structures, etc.

This is reality, whether we want to face it or not.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2015, 01:45 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Would one way of phrasing your position be instead of rights and privileges we have inalienable rights and "conditional" rights... or something along those lines?
Properly speaking, I don't think there is any such dichotomy. In my view all rights are inalienable until such a point as you do harm to someone that justifies punishment.

An example of "conditional" being you need to demonstrate some form minimal competency in driving before being allowed to exercise the right... or something along those lines.

The RTBA would be in the "inalienable" category, as no competency test is required.
The problem with something like driving is that it is in the context of government ownership of the roads. My earlier comments were to be taken in the context of the existing government monopoly.

I will go on the record here as saying that I do not believe that the government should be imposing minimum standards of competency for driving (or the ownership of firearms for that matter). Their only role should be preventing those who are an objective threat from driving. In terms of preemption, there should be a restriction on minors driving, and for example a blind person or one with another such disability should not be allowed to drive. I know it is not a popular position, I'm probably all but alone in this. The fact is though driving can be dangerous...it's not difficult. In fact it's damn easy. The two main things that make a safe driver are things that can't be taught by driving instructors: Experience and wisdom.

In a sense all rights are indeed conditional because they are all predicated not harming or violating others' rights. It is in this sense that one can have the "right" to do something, then have it "taken away" by a change in circumstance. The confusion seems to be in that other rights, such as the right to free speech or religion, are based on ideas. It is pretty difficult for me to imagine an objective threat coming out of the free expression of ideas. Freedom and rights themselves require the free expression of ideas.

Were people to develop the ability to kill with words like in Dune, or pray people to death then I would apply the same standard. Then we may have to discuss whom should not be allowed to speak or pray...but that's fantasy.
     
smacintush
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Across from the wallpaper store.
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Feb 2, 2015, 01:59 PM
 
Originally Posted by besson3c View Post
This idea that we are actually free is a strange fantasy.

We need privileges granted to us for all sorts of things, and this is as it should be, because we are basically wolf packs. Without each other we are pretty useless as a species. Some of us like to think that we are independent, but we are not, and thus as a group we need leaders, rules, structures, etc.

This is reality, whether we want to face it or not.
Utter. Nonsense.

Our social nature necessitates freedom from coercion and is built upon voluntary cooperation. In the whole of history the control of mankind by rulers has done nothing but hindered our success as a species and created and maintained widespread misery. It wasn't until we began to leave people the hell alone in the 18th and 19th centuries that we started to see real property bloom for everyone across the board.

Edit:
Furthermore, man does not survive by instinct like pack of dogs. We survive by thinking, so your analogy is shit.

To the extent you try to control mankind is the extent you repress or destroy his very nature.
( Last edited by smacintush; Feb 2, 2015 at 03:24 PM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 04:42 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,