Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3
From	Message
proginoskes 27-Dec-12, 16:14	chaz You are correct there are many things you could compare the right to bear arms to, but my point with using suffrage was to point out that we're talking about Constitutional rights. These should be black and white as they are rights, not granted by the government, but rights that exist because you are a free human being. These rights didn't magically appear because some men wrote a document years and years ago. These men recognized the rights and made sure that the government they were forming recognized those rights too. They exist a priori any government. The bill of rights was not designed to be changed. The bill of rights were added because they decided these were some things that should have been included in the original constitution. What is in there that was designed to be changed? The right to due process? The right to be secure in your home and papers except by sworn warrant? Should you be forced to allow soldiers to stay in your home? Should you have our freedom to believe or not believe restricted? Which of these 10 do you think the Founders designed to have changed? Where in any of their documents can you find any sense that is true? It is true the Constitution can be amended and has been 17 more times since the bill of rights. People could put all sorts of things into the Constitution or take them out - hardly see where that is right or correct. You really think we need to be listed? And cataloged? What are gun owners, sex offenders now? This is crazy. Chaz is is nuts man! Take a step back in think about it all. How does any of this prevent any crime at any time, and more specifically the horrible events of CT? The EXACT reason we live in a Constitutional Republic - the reason the government as designed as it is - is so that we don't have live where things change based on the sway of emotion of the electorate. You can't simply vote to screw over minority groups because minorities have protected rights. What kind of world do you want to live in? This about it.
proginoskes 27-Dec-12, 16:19	DM You have yet to establish in any meaningful or logical way how the government knowing where every gun is located would prevent a crazy person from shooting up a school. Until you can do so, you're blowing smoke out of your rear end. Confiscation is not a red herring, when history clearly shows registrations come before confiscations. Most of us are not willing to roll that dice, especially since we don't trust your kind. Not a whit. You lie through your teeth and we've had enough. We have higher rates of gun deaths because we have higher ownership of guns. If it were not for gun we'd have higher rates of deaths attributable to pointy sticks. It's a meaningless point. Free men can own weapons. We are not slaves.
thumper 27-Dec-12, 17:02	JD They carefully and studiously avoid the words, 'confiscate' and 'confiscation'. Instead, the most aggressive word they use is 'ban'. 'Such and such weapon will be banned.' They also mouth things such as, 'People will be allowed to...', and 'Reasonable restrictions on... '. They know the word and deed associated with 'confiscation' doesn't set well with people so they set about to 're-frame' what they want with more benign sounding terms. If they can just 'frame it properly' they can sucker people into voluntarily complying with their desire to remove personal firearms from civilian hands. They would love to 'confiscate' if they could, but don't think they can and are too cowardly to try. Safer to try trickery.
dmaestro 27-Dec-12, 17:20	We are reframing it as "gun safety measures". Not confiscation but registration of dangerous weapons and their owners for public safety. Which makes sense. I don't want a "free" Adam Lanza getting weapons and would gladly see his confiscated. The rest of you need to be more concerned about public safety and less about confiscation of all guns which is not going to happen.
chaz5 27-Dec-12, 19:14	jdh ... ... I take it by your response that you feel there is no compromise possible.
proginoskes 27-Dec-12, 20:18	chaz What I think I'm saying is that there has been "compromise" - ie. "we" have moved more towards the gun control position. Though real compromise is meeting halfway. If the gun control people want to register firearms as a "compromise" where is the middle ground where we met, and what did they give up in the process? It certainly sounds like we're simply giving in. Like I said, I'd entertain some required training, provided it's no time and cost prohibitive for anyone to do. Is this not enough of a "compromise"?
chaz5 27-Dec-12, 20:27	jdh ... ... real compromise is not necessarily "meeting halfway", it's more of a balanced quid pro quo that is appropriate for the time and situation. Of course, this may be debatable, and there will be wildly opposing points of view. My point was that if further ground is not given on this issue, gun advocates may lose much more than if they can come to the compromise table with an open mind. I understand and respect your dissent, but I would fear the potential and likely loss more.
proginoskes 27-Dec-12, 20:37	chaz I'd say that as a conservative, we've been giving ground on just about every single issue for years. The problem for the conservative is the long term strategy for the Fabian Socialist is one of slow gradual change - problem, reaction, solution, small change. Rinse repeat. I'm sue you have the same problems I do in a more general sense . . . why would we believe the politicians? any of them? Chaz, look where we are right now brother. The iron fist of the police state exists within the velvet glove - we have two systems running parallel, the American system of the Constitution and something else, not as nice and definitely not as free. Hell, they couldn't even get another NDAA bill through the House and Senate that would clarify the language about indefinite detention of Americans. Over and over again, the police and homeland security are told the new terrorist is "homegrown" and talked about "the Constitution". The entire war on terror apparatus has been turned inward my friend - inward. Given that context (lies and the behavior of the government towards it citizens) why would I believe them when they say the just want a simple registration? They don't want to take any guns. Just do what they say and everything will be fine? I'm sorry but I don't buy it anymore and I'm really surprised any of you do either. Maybe the alternative is too much to try and think about . . .
chaz5 27-Dec-12, 21:31	jdh ... ... first, I appreciate how important this particular issue is for you. Yet, I also know that similar rationales have been used in times past among those who have feared changes in other laws and practices. I also know that as times change, many things current in pre-1800 America are no longer applicable in today's world (I know many will argue this point). The country must evolve, and it must respond to the population of its day. Even if some of your fears have merit, it does not mean that we must remain unchanged or unresponsive to what the World brings us in the tomorrows yet to come. Such questions as these are remarkably challenging, yes ... and we must indeed be careful with how we manage such change ... but change is also inevitable. ... second, not everyone holds the same value for weapons as you and others obviously do. Many in fact want nothing to do with guns whatsoever and do not even want to be around those who do. Are their rights and wishes of less value than those who do? What if these "many" are in the majority?
proginoskes 28-Dec-12, 07:31	chaz Have we evolved past the point where we can trust our government? Are you ready to hand over the handle to the ejection seat? Are you satisfied that the political process will always work for you, the majority, while protecting the minority? Do you think it's time, in the name of cultural evolution, to accept that soft chains and give up our rights as free men? No one forces people who do not like guns to own one or be around one. The same way you don't have a "right" to prevent someone from practicing a religion because you do not like like being around people who practice that religion, you do not have a "right" to prevent someone from the means of self-defense. We already clearly established this is a natural right, you said so yourself. It's in the same category as the right to life, to speech, to religion (or none), to the press, to a speedy and fair trial. When's you've decided that one fundamental right is no longer a right because of "cultural evolution", then you're not really left with much. If you compromise the principles of one fundamental right, then there really is no principles left you will not violate, eventually, when it becomes convenient and expedient for you. Honestly, chaz, why do you think the governments in places like China of Cuba don't recognize any fundamental rights?
chaz5 28-Dec-12, 08:20	jdh ... ... no, I personally am not ready to trust the government; but, I'm also not ready to trust the corporations ... who seem to have greater clout and more money than the gov't does. Which of these two do you trust more and why? ... your comparison of guns to religions doesn't work. How many religions do you know that could threaten your life with death? I can ignore my neighbor's religion and do just fine ... I may not be able to ignore his gun. I've been around people who brandish their weapons ... as well as their "don't mess with me" behaviors. Even if I don't mess with them, they let me know that they can get their way because they have their guns. These "don't mess with me folks" are potentially less judicial and less cooperative than the gov't. The only way I can neutralize this is also to get guns ... whether I want them or not. Is this protecting my rights? So, whoever has the most guns wins? ... will the choices of the majority prevail? I'm not trying to persuade you ... I'm wrestling with the issue, and so far I have not reached a conclusion based upon the evidence I've seen.
dmaestro 28-Dec-12, 08:21	So because you have paranoia about the government elected by the people and a volunteer army recruited from the people you want the "right" to endanger the rest of us by refusal to accept any reasonable controls on who has weapons? Your "right" infringes on my right to life, safety, etc. Yeah as the dc sniper proved you all could make life hell in some revoltion with your anti government militia but it is much more likely lives will be made hell by the bad guys. Frankly I think most people will not like those odds. This is basically 2013, not 1789.
proginoskes 28-Dec-12, 18:51	chaz Well, if you're not ready to trust corporations either then you're a very thoughtful guy. The plans of both the government and finance/banking/transnational corporatism are basically the same - they exist in a symbiotic relationship with the state giving power and legal protection to the corporate group, whilst he corporate group buys the politicians that run the government. Notice how high positions in politics and the corporate world are very interchangeable - Goldman-Sachs seems to pop up and awful lot, not just in our politics but in Europe as well. I trust neither of them any farther than I can throw them and assume they are all working together to make me poor and less free. Look, there may be no perfect analogy between the right to own a weapon and any of the other negative rights recognized by the first 10 amendments to the Constitution. However, you right to be not be possibly, maybe harm with a weapon cannot supercede another person's negative to self-defense, unless that person has FIRST demonstrated they are a danger. You can't infringe on a negative right because of what *could* happen. And majority opinion do not matter when it comes to rights. If you have two wolves and one sheep voting on what's for dinner and no protection for the sheep's right, how do to think that will go? we have a system of government that protects a number on innumerate negative rights, whilst allowing for the democrat election of officials to make laws in and around those rights in a fashion that generally lines up with the majority opinion (and often requires a super-majority opinion). So when it comes to guns, you have the sticky problem with the wording of the Constitution, the last phrase of the 2A is: shall not be infringed. "Shall not" seems fairly straight forward - though in spite of that we have agreed upon certain limitations anyway. For me it boils down to objective principles. If you have a right to defense, and you agree that we do, then it all flows from there. If you are going to respect that freedom, you are also going to have to accept that there will sometimes be tragedies with guns. To prevent these tragedies from occurring in special and sensitive places like grade schools, you will need to take practical steps to guard these places.
proginoskes 28-Dec-12, 18:53	DM No one is interested in any kind of revolution. What a nightmare. My right to simply have a weapon doesn't infringe on your safety.
chaz5 28-Dec-12, 19:23	jdh ... ... I appreciate your thoughtful conversation on this subject. I wish other conservative-leaning, pro-2A posters would be as thoughtful to such honest questions. You went a lot further than they know how to do. That said, I remain unconvinced of how to embrace this issue. I'm wrestling with just how much of my personal freedoms am I willing to relinquish for the greater good of that majority opinion ... and I can definitely see the erosion of personal freedoms over time, mind you. I imagine less will change in the short term to make it completely unacceptable (considering my age) ... then I think about where it all is going, the future, our children, and the value of investments made in our Western (American) values ... then I think about cyclic histories of evolution, chaos, revolution, repeat ... then I think about whether it's better to preserve what we might believe as being best yet versus being able to perpetually adapt to ever-changing circumstances. Thank you again.
proginoskes 28-Dec-12, 19:31	chaz and I appreciate you listening and engaging in the conversation
thumper 28-Dec-12, 20:02	Interesting conversation input: "... I appreciate your thoughtful conversation on this subject... But... I'm wrestling with just how much of my personal freedoms am I willing to relinquish... I can definitely see the erosion of personal freedoms over time...But... I imagine less will change in the short term to make it completely unacceptable (to me) considering my age." Translation: I'm comfortable and willing to sell out current and future freedom for a little perceived temporary security now. I'm old and will be dead before any real consequences happen so eh, screw em. It's their problem not mine, they'll adapt. I just wish the conservative-leaning, pro-2A posters would just shut up and quit rocking the boat.
dmaestro 28-Dec-12, 20:17	Let it all out thumper. Any attempt to let you have your guns in a way that minimizes risks to the rest of us is unacceptable. Funny thing is any time the government wanted to take you out a drone could do it and you wouldn't even know what hit you and your family. So much for your right to overthrow a tyrannical government if it ever got that bad here the whole world would be in chaos. Your rights have limits that did not exist in 1789. Wake up, safety is more important than your right to have private armies.
thumper 28-Dec-12, 20:24	"Freedom is never more than one generation away from extinction. We didn't pass it on to our children in the bloodstream. The only way they can inherit the freedom we have known is if we fight for it, protect it, defend it, and hand it to them with the well fought lessons of how they in their lifetime must do the same. And if you and I don't do this, then you and I may well spend our sunset years telling our children and our grandchildren what it once was like in America when men were free." -Ronald Reagan
thumper 28-Dec-12, 20:29	So you're saying a modern tyrannical government will just kill me with a drone? Do you know how much they cost? Are you going to pay for it?
thumper 28-Dec-12, 21:02	This is interesting. The libs are now threatening to use M1A1 Battle tanks and Reaper drones to attack and kill Americans who won't comply with them. Don't forget the AH64 Apaches and M1126 Stryker ICVs. Hmmm, who I wonder will be commanding and operating these crew served weapons?
chaz5 28-Dec-12, 21:15	Thumper ... ... if you're trying to persuade anyone to adopting your point of view, you're not doing very well. It seems you are the one being backed into a corner. Does this mean we must now fear your own behavior?
thumper 28-Dec-12, 22:11	You, by your own admission are deciding how much of our freedom you can trade for some temporary comfort for yourself before you pass from old age, leaving the next generation to fend for itself, 'adapting' to the less freedom you leave them. Not me Amigo. Not good enough. I want my kids and grand-kids to live and grow up in a free country. I'm not a politician. I'm a free man Chaz, and don't fear you or the other libs. If you fear me, what I stand for or what I have to say, that's your problem. Get use to it, there are 10s of millions of us and WE WILL NOT BE SILENCED by thug tactics or threats of violence.
chaz5 28-Dec-12, 22:21	Thumper ... ... you have my sympathy.
thumper 28-Dec-12, 22:37	LOL. So that 'tone' is OK for the libs but not for 'conservatives'? You may like this then: “If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We ask not your counsels or arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.” ― Samuel Adams Or this- “No people will tamely surrender their Liberties, nor can any be easily subdued, when knowledge is diffused and virtue is preserved. On the Contrary, when People are universally ignorant, and debauched in their Manners, they will sink under their own weight without the Aid of foreign Invaders.” ― Samuel Adams Maybe this- “If ever a time should come, when vain and aspiring men shall possess the highest seats in Government, our country will stand in need of its experienced patriots to prevent its ruin.” ― Samuel Adams Surely this- “The liberties of our country, the freedoms of our civil Constitution are worth defending at all hazards; it is our duty to defend them against all attacks. We have received them as a fair inheritance from our worthy ancestors. They purchased them for us with toil and danger and expense of treasure and blood. It will bring a mark of everlasting infamy on the present generation – enlightened as it is – if we should suffer them to be wrested from us by violence without a struggle, or to be cheated out of them by the artifices of designing men.” ― Samuel Adams And don't forget this- “The Constitution shall never be construed to prevent the people of the United States who are peaceable citizens from keeping their own arms.” ― Samuel Adams Certainly not this- “[I]t is the greatest absurdity to suppose it in the power of one, or of any number of men, at the entering into society to renounce their essential natural rights, or the means of preserving those rights, when the grand end of civil government, from the very nature of its institution, is for the support, protection, and defence of those very rights; the principal of which, as is before observed, are life, liberty, and property. If men, through fear, fraud, or mistake, should in terms renounce or give up an essential natural right, the eternal law of reason and the grand end of society would absolutely vacate such renunciation. The right of freedom being the gift of God Almighty, it is not in the power of man to alienate this gift and voluntarily become a slave.” ― Samuel Adams I think Sam and I would have been friends.
chaz5 29-Dec-12, 07:54	Thumper ... ... you miss the point entirely. Sorry. I'm not disagreeing with you on all points. Yet you take my own words and rephrase them to suit your preconceived notions. You have already labeled me as some sort of enemy as I admit that I remain formulating my own position on these ideas. If I'm not 100% for you, then I'm 100% against you, it seems. This is why you're not persuading very many folks to have a better understanding of your point of view. By your own behavior, people may come to fear you instead of respect you ... and it seems that is precisely what you desire. And, that is what I say "you have my sympathy" for that is a losers ultimate course. You do not know the enemy you're creating.
dmaestro 29-Dec-12, 09:57	thumper drones are getting better and cheaper all the time. soon enough that bird you see flying above your house if the government becomes tyrannical could be a mass produced drone. civilians can't keep up with the technology like they could in 1789 and the now volunteer military has replaced the ad hoc militias that won independence. that is why the Supreme Court has ruled out banning all guns but not reasonable restrictions. the rank and file of government consists of ordinary citizens. liberty today lies in citizen participation not militias.
thumper 29-Dec-12, 14:26	LA Gun Buyback Collects 2,037 Firearms Gun owners received gift cards in exchange for surrendered weapons By Jonathan Lloyd, Thursday, Dec 27, 2012 More than 2,000 firearms -- including 75 assault weapons -- were collected Wednesday during the first Los Angeles gun buyback since the shooting deaths of 20 children and six staff members at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Connecticut. The buybacks, which began in LA in 2009, offer gift cards in exchange for firearms. Buybacks were conducted Wednesday in Van Nuys and at the Los Angeles Sports Arena. A total of 2,037 firearms were collected, bringing the number of firearms collected since the program began to 9,979. Weapons collected Wednesday included 901 handguns, 698 rifles, 363 shotguns, and 75 assault weapons, according to Mayor Antonio Villaraigosa's office. A rocket launcher also was surrendered. Gun owners who surrendered weapons received Ralphs gift cards. The value of each card depended on the type of gun surrendered. Assault weapons were exchanged for $200 gift cards. Gift cards valued up to $100 were offered for handguns, rifles, and shotguns. "Too many things are happening today," Denise Jones, who turned in a gun, told NBC4 Wednesday. "You don’t know if someone is gonna get upset and if they know you have it, they go for it. Anything could happen. I just thought it’d be a good thing to turn it in." When they arrived at the gun buyback location -- set up in a drive-through configuration -- participants were greeted by personnel who gave them instructions on how the guns will be removed from their vehicles. Police officers then took possession of the surrendered guns and the owners were offered a gift card. The gun buyback is usually conducted in May, but organizers moved the date to December in response to the shootings at Sandy Hook Elementary School in Newtown, Conn. The figures were announced on the same day that Los Angeles Police Department Chief Charlie Beck issued a stern warning to those who might consider celebratory gunfire when 2012 turns into 2013. "Please spend New Year's Eve with your families; spend New Year's Eve with your friends. Don't spend it my jail or (county Sheriff) Lee Baca's jail," Beck said. "If you fire into the air, that's my promise to you: You will get to spend the new year in the big house." www.nbclosangeles.com California gun sales jump – gun injuries, deaths fall Dealers sold 600,000 firearms in state last year, up from 350,000 in 2002 (Sacramento Bee) Gun deaths and injuries have dropped sharply in California, even as the number of guns sold in the state has risen, according to new state data. Dealers sold 600,000 guns in California last year, up from 350,000 in 2002, according to records of sale tallied by the California Attorney General’s office. www.wnd.com That's over 2 million NIB firearms purchaced in the same time frame that 10 thousand rusted/inop/stolen firearms were traded in for groceries for a total net increase of over 1.99 million in California alone. hmmm
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3

GameKnot: play chess online, chess clubs, Internet chess league, monthly chess tournaments, chess teams, online chess puzzles, free online chess games database and more.