Log in  
Sign up

Play online chess!

Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »
From	Message
dmaestro 30-Dec-12, 18:32	Thumper, The Supreme Court has accepted that some restrictions on gun ownership are constitutional. For example, an assault weapon ban has never been ruled unconstitutional because those weapons bave nothing to do with ordinary self defense, hunting, marksmanship, target shooting, or a well regulated sanctioned paramilitary militia. You presume a "right" that is unrecognized. The consequences of refusal to compromise so we can reduce risk are that you will have no say in the details and if you persist in thinking you can violate gun laws that are duly passed and are found constitutional, you will be held accountable.
tat3225 31-Dec-12, 12:40	Chaz "... so ... might makes right. Those with the most weapons, make the rules. Is that more true or less true when we compare countries on one hand, with individuals on the other?" Are you asking me if might does in fact make right, or are you stating that it does? I ask because although you stated this initially, it was followed with the statement that those with the most weapons make the rules. In my mind these are two different things.
chaz5 31-Dec-12, 15:37	tat ... ... both. It appears that might makes right. From this, it is logical that those with the most weapons (the might) make the rules. Do you agree with this? From this, I explore the analogy as it applies to countries on one hand, and individuals on the other ... and thence asked the question I did.
tat3225 02-Jan-13, 02:22	chaz In my profile here I have some of my most valued/favorite quotes. Two of them I want to put here in response to your questions......the first is from War and Peace and the second is from Atlas Shrugged: "I sit on a man's back, choking him and making him carry me, and yet assure myself and others that I am very sorry for him and wish to ease his lot by all possible means - except by getting off his back." ....Tolstoy "There are two sides to every issue: one side is right and the other is wrong, but the middle is always evil. The man who is wrong still retains some respect for truth, if only by accepting the responsibility of choice. But the man in the middle is the knave who blanks out the truth in order to pretend that no choice or values exist, who is willing to sit out the course of any battle, willing to cash in on the blood of the innocent or to crawl on his belly to the guilty, who dispenses justice by condemning both the robber and the robbed to jail, who solves conflicts by ordering the thinker and the fool to meet each other halfway. In any compromise between food and poison, it is only death that can win." .....Rand
tat3225 02-Jan-13, 08:07	Catching up on news after the holiday....just read this opinion piece in The Moscow Times emphasizing a lack of accountability in Russian government stemming from a lack of respect for the personal property of individuals as being the cause of corruption and problems in Russia for centuries. I thought it was interesting, given our gun control debate! www.themoscowtimes.com
tat3225 02-Jan-13, 08:12	violence in russia from an expat perspective www.themoscowtimes.com
chaz5 02-Jan-13, 09:21	tat ... ... thank you for sharing the two quotes; but, I respectfully disagree with the conclusions inferred by them (despite the authors' fame). It is precisely because of this right/wrong mentality that so many wars are fought, that there are so many self-righteous religions on crusades to save everyone else, and that so many people die who are on the "wrong" side of someone else's "right." Further, with the "might" of the sword comes the responsibility for using might with humility, not self aggrandizement (implied in quote). Being able to compromise is a separate skill ... arguably more difficult and more complicated that basing everything upon the size of the sword. Finally, the inability to compromise and/or to understand how pure might cannot make the rules breeds corruption, intolerance, and tyranny. IMHO. I understand your different view and appreciate it for what it is.
softaire 02-Jan-13, 11:11	chaz Nice post, nice thought. Can you provide any examples of where, how, or when in the history of the world that this has happened as you suggest it should? Has there been any rulers or governments in the history of the world that act as you suggest they should?
chaz5 02-Jan-13, 13:21	Softy ... ... many countries start off with good intentions ... many revolutions have ultimate high-level intentions as the reason to revolt in the first place, after all ... successful revolutions often spawn successful countries or the process repeats until it does. I'm not sure if I can say this about every revolution; prob'ly most, however. The US is just one example among many who started off with these good intentions. Historically, many of these countries have started, peaked, and fallen ... in historical cycles ... IMHO in large part to what I described in my previous post. From here on, however, you will likely put your own spin on this and take it through one of your games again.
proginoskes 03-Jan-13, 07:53	I'll just leave this here . . . urbangrounds.com
proginoskes 03-Jan-13, 07:57	and this wizbangblog.com
softaire 03-Jan-13, 08:20	chaz So, you have NO specific examples of any rulers, governments, or countries that actually perform to your stated ideals. Like I said... nice post, nice thought. But unrealistic and unworkable in real life.
chaz5 03-Jan-13, 10:27	Softy ... ... I gave the US as one example of the many out there. Don't you know your history? C'mon ...
tat3225 03-Jan-13, 11:40	chaz I think pandora's box has been opened..........I was never judging the morality of war or talking about the cause of war. I was saying that it happens. The person who wins is almost always the one with the most force (in one capacity or another). Whether or not this is right or wrong is irrelevant. Hitler represented the National Socialist German Worker's party. He was elected into power. His platform did not include the activities that took place during the Holocaust and he did not stand up and describe his plan to invade Europe and north Africa and mess with the United States and Stalin. German's elected him for many of the same reasons that people elected Obama. Hitler was charismatic and gave motivating speeches. He came across as though he genuinely cared about Germany, the economy in Germany, and it's people. He also injected a lot of money into Germany to fund the things he wanted to do. Hitler did everything for the good of the people and the good of Germany. He convinced an entire population that rounding up the Jews and segregating them was for the good of the people. Then, after some time, he started taking them away..........Hitler essentially compromised his way into Germany and into the holocaust and into the rest of Europe. He didn't take power in Germany, it was given to him by his supporters. Stalin was even worse. The way that he gained power in Russia can only be described as brilliant. He didn't kill millions overnight either. It took him a couple decades to do that. He managed to convince a huge amount of Russians that his plans and everything he stood for was for the good of the people. Many Russians, having already been warmed by Lenin, were receptive to this. Of course, despite his 'good' intentions, his plans were a disaster from the beginning. So, Rand's point was that the most evil things in the world are not a product of a clear cut, wrong versus right debate. It's hard to dismiss her point of view, considering that she was born in Saint Petersburg in 1905, the February and October revolutions happened outside her front door, and she literally witnessed the fall of Imperial Russia, the formation of the interim Government and then the takeover by the Bolsheviks. Her father's business and property were "taken" by the Communist government (via paperwork and new legislation), she attended college in Russia and she came to the United States as an adult. So she also had the benefit of having something to compare her life in Russia to. Evil is not violent and in your face. It's passive, manipulative and it compromises. People are making a big deal out of Adam Lanza. If he's evil, then what would you call Hitler or Stalin? They didn't actually kill millions themselves. So, are they still evil?
tat3225 03-Jan-13, 11:42	Jdh I love Boston's letter. I honestly hadn't even thought of the fact that Congress and of course the president and VP are guarded using firearms. Wow. Definitely adds to the hypocrisy!
tat3225 03-Jan-13, 12:23	Also jdh It also sounds like there would be a mutiny of some kind among the military if there was ever any kind of confiscation. So, I'm guessing that confiscation will come in small slow steps, piece by piece, and will be the result of legislature that comes together to mean that citizens can't have guns. Then, instead of being confiscated they will be bought by the government. Resulting in a disarmed population.
dmaestro 03-Jan-13, 12:53	There is nothing wrong with or hypocritical about armed guards for public targets. That does not mean everyone in the general public needs mass killing style weapons. Bottom line is if enough people agree there will be nothing illegal about confiscation of selected weapons and buy back is the fair way to do it. The idea that our democracy would be overthrown by tyrants because the public does not have suitable weapons is unrealistic.
thumper 03-Jan-13, 13:24	They will not immediately start kicking doors. They'll gradually tighten the screws to convince fence walkers and 'casual' owners to 'voluntarily' comply. Basic historic order of events: Bill passes, PR campaign, compile 4473s etc., PR campaign, create lists to prioritize contact hierarchy (A list, B list, C list), PR campaign, identify and focus on 'leaders', PR campaign, send (mail) notices to register or turn in weapons - citing Bill as authority, PR campaign, send (mail) second notices also containing threats for noncompliance, PR campaign, send third notice for noncompliance repeat threat with promise of amnesty, PR campaign, traffic stops with compelled search, tossing houses while at work or out to dinner etc, PR campaign and newspaper interactive maps showing owner info with requests that 'public' turn in 'criminals', PR campaign, bounties and rewards offered for info. Door kicking starts and DM gets his dream job.
dmaestro 03-Jan-13, 15:11	There is lots to be said for the satisfaction of wearing a badge and ensuring people comply with laws, signs and instructions of government officials. Like how TSA does.  . I think there will be a compromise and only some weapons will be outlawed.
proginoskes 03-Jan-13, 15:21	TSA workers don't have badges. They are neither sworn to protect the constitution nor bonded. The only way at this point to avoid rather unfortunate confrontations would be either no further gun laws, or if they do manage to get a ban on new assault weapons and new magazines, with everything else grandfathered. Gun owners will likely tolerate that. If they try for a registry, most gun owners will not comply with this. And if that is then further used as a reason to brand those gun owners as criminals and confiscations start, then this will lead to a lot of unfortunate problems . . .
dmaestro 03-Jan-13, 15:31	We can alway control ammunition. No sales without permit, purchases tracked. You can keep and bear arms but use of illegal ammo is criminal, gun is confiscated
proginoskes 03-Jan-13, 15:51	you'd have the same unfortunate consequences for trying something like that as well
tat3225 03-Jan-13, 15:58	How are you going to control ammunition? That's illegal. It falls under interfering with the usability of a citizens firearm.
thumper 03-Jan-13, 22:23	Tat If they can make guns illegal, they can make ammo illegal too. They can make anything they want illegal. Knives with too long or thickness of blade. Owning more than two 5 gallon cans of gasoline. Archery equipment, anything they choose. Even unacceptable books or magazines can be censored and destroyed. They would have no limit.
dmaestro 03-Jan-13, 23:23	Think again. The 2A referr to a militia associated with the right to near arms and there is a common implication that outright bans impede a citizens right to keep and bear arms. But it does not say all arms and it does not refer to ammunition. We can constitutionally control the types of weapons and/or the capacity of clips and the use of ammunition not associated with a militia or reasonable self defence. All we need is the public behind us and a Supreme Court majority and it is law. You do not read the entire sentence properly.
thumper 04-Jan-13, 00:02	"You can fool all the people some of the time, you can fool some of the people all of the time, but you can't fool all of the people all of the time." This is an area where you can't fool enough of the right people. I must admit, you trying to lecture me on what you want the Constitution to mean is quite amusing. Still trying to 'frame it properly' huh? "On every question of construction, let us carry ourselves back to the time when the Constitution was adopted, recollect the spirit manifested in the debates, and instead of trying what meaning may be squeezed out of the text, or invented against it, conform to the probable one in which it was passed." -Thomas Jefferson, letter to William Johnson, June 12, 1823, The Complete Jefferson, p. 322.
thumper 04-Jan-13, 00:31	"Every act of a delegated authority, contrary to the tenor of the commission under which it is exercised, is void. No legislative act, therefore, contrary to the Constitution, can be valid. To deny this, would be to affirm, that the deputy is greater than his principal; that the servant is above his master; that the representatives of the people are superior to the people themselves; that men acting by virtue of powers, may do not only what their powers do not authorize, but what they forbid." - Alexander Hamiltion
thumper 04-Jan-13, 00:37	"Whenever governments mean to invade the rights and liberties of the people, they always attempt to destroy the militia, in order to raise an army upon their ruins." - Rep. Elbridge Gerry of Massachusetts, spoken during floor debate over the Second Amendment, I Annals of Congress at 750, August 17, 1789.
dmaestro 04-Jan-13, 00:40	The question is whether gun control as distinct from outright bans on guns is unconstitutional. The courts have ruled it is not, first in 1934, but have simply not defined the exact limits yet. You can interpret it however you want. But once we pass a law and it is upheld by the courts and supported by a majority of the people the matter is settled law. When that day comes, you will just have to deal with it.
thumper 04-Jan-13, 00:58	"The whole of the Bill [of Rights] is a declaration of the right of the people at large or considered as individuals ... It establishes some rights of the individual as unalienable and which consequently, no majority has the right to deprive them of." - Albert Gallatin of the New York Historical Society, October 7, 1789.
Pages:  « Previous 1 2 3 4 5 Next »

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