What do you think about the Newtown family members who want to ban guns [W: 372]

[Adagio]

the commerce clause was a dishonest basis of power


You still haven't made an argument as to why the supreme sovereign should have less powerful weapons than our public servants. And you still haven't made a sensible argument on why there should be a magazine limit and what it should be

You also miss the fact that at what point does a limit violate the constitution. Reading Miller and Heller establishes that a 17 round handgun is clearly protected, scalia refused to actually say what you wanted

" really horrible weapons" well cops don't carry those. location limitations

When asked about weapons that can fire 100 rounds in a minute, he said the amendment doesn't apply to stuff that cannot be carried. cannons. I sure didn't hear anything that supports banning common police weapons that are everywhere such as 17 shot handguns or select fire carbines that national guardsmen all are issued

nice try though but it doesn't support your claims

the commerce clause was a dishonest basis of power

No it wasn't. But it's not surprising that a self described Libertarian would think that since it was pretty much established during the FDR period. West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish. (1937) upheld a state law mandating a minimum wage for women. It rejected the Lochner-era assumption that an unregulated market economy provided fair opportunities for the exercise of natural liberty. The court wrote, "the exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless agains the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well-being, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the commuity". In this formulation, an unregulated "free martket" is neither sacrosacnt nor even presumptively just. The government violates NO protected liberty when it identifies economic "exploitation" and enacts regulatory legislation to correct it.

You still haven't made an argument as to why the supreme sovereign should have less powerful weapons than our public servants. And you still haven't made a sensible argument on why there should be a magazine limit and what it should be

It's because we govern by consent of the "supreme sovereign' otherwise known as the people. Much of the background formation of this country rests on John Locke. A democratically elected government has the right to tax people. It involves taxation with consent. It requires consent of the governed, but not the consent of each individual. It requires a prior act of consent to join the society to take on the political obligations. Once you take on that obligation, you agree to be bound by the majority. . Again, consent is not from the individual, but rather comes from the agreement to join the society and be bound by the decisions of the majority.Limited government is only limited in the sense that it cannot be arbitrary and must govern by generally applicable laws. That’s Locke!

The authority to regulate the kind of weapons available to the public and size of the magazine is vested in the government through the consent of the people.It isn't arbitrary. It is generally applicable law. It doesn't say that YOU cannot own these items. It applies to everyone. And the people decide on whether weapons used by the military can be made available to the public and what size magazines are available. So the government does have that authority. As for your question on why a limit should be imposed, that is always going to be a matter of descretion on what is in the public interest with regards to the safety of the people. You may feel that you have the right to own a Stealth Bomber...after all whatever the government or military has at its disposal should also be at yours, however you have no need to own such a thing which has no purpose other than military. They aren't for sale to the public.

You have no reason to assume that anything that is provided for the military should or ought to be provided to the public.They aren't like the public sector in any way. The military doesn't function like any part of our society. It's the single most socialistic system that we have. They don't operate on the same economic structure as civilians, they get free medical, housing subsidy's, they are provided weapons training as integral to their job. There is no reason to view them as equivelant to civilian society. They function in a totally heirarchal structure. There is nothing democratic about it. Why would you or anybody assume that the public at large should or ought to function in the same way. They're a completely different society.

I sure didn't hear anything that supports banning common police weapons that are everywhere such as 17 shot handguns or select fire carbines that national guardsmen all are issued

Assuming that you know something about logic, Argumentum ex Silentio; The fallacy that if sources remain silent or say nothing about a given subject or question this in itself proves something about the truth of the matter. Maybe you missed that course at school. Just because Scalia said nothing about the issue doesn't prove that the issue is determined as true. What he said is that those issues would need to be addressed as they come up, and that there are surely some restrictions that would apply.

I'm curious about your stated Libertarianism. Does that mean you are pro-choice when it comes to abortion rights? If you're a Libertarian, you'd have to be. You could hardly call yourself a Libertarian and violate the most basic principle of Libertarianism..the right to your own person.

 

[Harshaw]

No it wasn't. But it's not surprising that a self described Libertarian would think that since it was pretty much established during the FDR period. West Coast Hotel Co v. Parrish. (1937) upheld a state law mandating a minimum wage for women. It rejected the Lochner-era assumption that an unregulated market economy provided fair opportunities for the exercise of natural liberty. The court wrote, "the exploitation of a class of workers who are in an unequal position with respect to bargaining power and are thus relatively defenseless agains the denial of a living wage is not only detrimental to their health and well-being, but casts a direct burden for their support upon the commuity". In this formulation, an unregulated "free martket" is neither sacrosacnt nor even presumptively just. The government violates NO protected liberty when it identifies economic "exploitation" and enacts regulatory legislation to correct it.

That is a dishonest response. One does not have to show any of this -- liberty interests, rights, anything -- to establish that the Commerce Clause was misused. So, none of this proves that the Commerce Clause was used properly.

 

[Adagio]

I have contempt for anyone who tries to RAPE our rights. I have CONTEMPT for anyone who thinks their loss should be salved by an emotobabbling attack on people who had NOTHING to do with their loss

and I have even MORE CONTEMPT for those who use those useful fools as pawns to advance their disgusting anti freedom agenda

You might consider that people have contempt for those like yourself that offer only cynicism toward others and use words that may have a more significant meaning than your casual usage. Not having ever experienced rape, you indulge in a word that you can't even relate to in any meaningful way. Your constant overblown assertions of "disgusting anti-freedom agenda's" is a bore, and typical of the self-serving agenda of the so-called Libertarians that stopped thinking after reading an Ayn Rand novel that they couldn't even finish. I stopped reading comic books a long time ago. What's your excuse?

 

[Adagio]

Yeah, well, your problem is that I wasn't attempting to discredit your argument by that observation (everyone else was discrediting it handily enough). Thus, no fallacy.

Very bad attempt at justification. I'm not the one with the problem dude. Reason isn't your strong suit. You fail.:smash:

 

[Adagio]

absolutely.

it can only be said in this context by someone who is extremely insensitive to what real trauma can mean.

and someone who lacks empathy for others.

Empathy is not a strong suit for the Libertarians. If you were on fire, they wouldnt...well you know the rest. :roll:They'd tell you it's not their problem.

 

[Adagio]

6-I was merely talking about the six years I was on the pro tour. (in one discipline-I shot in the world championships in another). I have been shooting competitively for over 35 years in some discipline or another

So you don't think soldiers consult with world class competitive speed shooters? LOL

why don't retired Green Berets win stuff like the world IPSC championship, the world speed shooting championships or the world three gun championships. The current World champion is Eric Grauffel of France. Its because most of the stuff SF soldiers do DOES NOT INVOLVE speed shooting with handguns. HALO, first aid, foreign languages, map reading, navigation-yeah my nephew does lots of things I couldn't do even when I was a very good athlete in my 20s But shooting a pistol, very few of those guy will beat my scores

why don't retired Green Berets win stuff like the world IPSC championship, the world speed shooting championships or the world three gun championships.

I wasn't aware that they were required to enter that kind of crap when they retired. Maybe they have no interest. At my sons graduation, I was introduced to a guy with long grey hair in a pony-tail. He was a retired Green Beret, and a MOH recipient. He was a legend at Fort Bragg for his exploits in Nam. He'd moved on to other things in his life. Have you given any thought to the possibility that not everyone shares your all consuming infatuation with being a cowboy? I'm being a bit hard on you here. I applaud your vast accomplishments on "speed shooting". I'm sure you're a huge hit on the "speed shooting circuit". Maybe they'll make it an Olympic event and we'll see you on the cover of Sports Illustrated. However, it says nothing about your combat abilities, and there is far more to combat than how fast you can fire a pistol, and aside from all that, it really has nothing to do with the debate over gun laws. I am impressed with the three Navy SEAL's that took out the three Sudanese pirates with single simultaneous shots from a bobbing ship while towing another boat also bobbing in the ocean. According to my son...it was more likely that it was three members of Delta that actually did the mission. That's their kind of mission and they are quite deadly. The SEAL's got the credit. We'll probably never know, however we don't announce Delta missions or publically promote what they do.

 

[Jerry]

While I am sorry about their loss, I have nothing but contempt for people who want to rape the rights of millions in their effort to punish someone since Lanza cheated the courts and the executioner by blowing his worthless brains out.

THEIR GRIEF does not give them a license to punish us.

In the name of net-neutrality and "fairness in the media" they should give equal time to the Newtown family members who oppose gun bans.

 

[Adagio]

ah the emotional guilt trip that the "we care more than you do" nonsense the left lays on people who refuse to piss on their constitutional rights to make emotionally unstable people feel better

lame

No. The fact is that as a Libertarian, you lack any empathy for others. You complain about rights being "pissed" on when they aren't. The sheer phoniness of Libertarians is what is so astonishing. Rand Paul claims to be a staunch Libertarian. Yet, The senator has introduced a "Life at Conception Act," which upholds traditional religious beliefs that human life begins at conception.

I think he should start the Hypocrite Party, because he sure ain't a Libertarian. A true Libertarian holds that there are three things that states do that are illegitimate. As a Libertarian I'm sure you're aware of Robert Nozik. In Noziks book, Anarchy, State, and Utopia, he writes:
Strong rights theory – Libertarianism. Takes individual rights seriously. The fundamental individual right is the right to Liberty.

What is the role of government/state? Three things that are illegitimate
1.Paternalist legislation. Passing laws that protect people from themselves. ( seat belt laws. Helmet laws) It may be a good thing, but it should be up to the individual. It’s not the governments business.
2.No morals legislation.
3.No redistribution of wealth from rich to poor. The libertarian says that amounts to theft.

He points to Two principles:
1.Justice in acquisition. (initial holdings) Did people get the things they use to make their money fairly? If they were entitled to the things they used, then the first principle is met.
2.Justice in transfer (free market)

And The most basic idea is that ; I own myself!

That means that the government has no authority over your person. If you choose to have an abortion the state has no authority to stand in the way of that. It has no right to legislate against that right to decide what you can do with your own body. Even a person like Ayn Rand was pro-choice. How can you claim to be a Libertarian and violate the most fundamental and basic premise or idea which is I OWN MYSELF?? Rand Paul is NOT a Libertarian. He is however a hypocrite of the first order. He's probably also a rank opportunist that knows he can't get elected in Kentucky by being a pro-choice Republican. Anyone professing to be a libertarian and claims a pro-life postion is a phoney and phoney's are not to be trusted.

 

[JayDubya]

No. The fact is that as a Libertarian, you lack any empathy for others.

My what a bit of hyperpartisan trolling bull**** this is.

You complain about rights being "pissed" on when they aren't.

No, you just want us to think that stream of yellow is gently falling rainwater.

The sheer phoniness of Libertarians is what is so astonishing. Rand Paul claims to be a staunch Libertarian. Yet, The senator has introduced a "Life at Conception Act," which upholds traditional religious beliefs that human life begins at conception.

This is not an abortion thread.

But the fact that every Homo sapiens lifespan begins at fertilization is a scientific fact an MD should know, not merely a religious belief. Duh?

Anyone professing to be a libertarian and claims a pro-life postion is a phoney and phoney's are not to be trusted.

No, I'm not. Quite to the contrary, frankly, but this isn't an abortion thread, so take your off-topic nonsense flamebait somewhere else.

 

[Harshaw]

Very bad attempt at justification. I'm not the one with the problem dude. Reason isn't your strong suit. You fail.:smash:

I wasn't "reasoning"; I was making an observation. There is no way to "fail" in doing that -- especially when you didn't even try to change my impression.

What THIS is falls under "protesteth too much."

 

[Adagio]

If you make that argument, and you do, and you have any interest in consistency concerning Constitutional matters, which you don't, then the same logic should apply to voter ID. None of the ID laws ban voting, just certain types of voters.

Why would you think that I have no interest in being consistant on Constitutional matters? And...what do gun laws have to do with Voter ID issues? How do guns = Voter IDs. You're committing a false analogy. You're comparing apples and oranges. One thing has to do with the public safety, and the other has to do with disenfranchisment from the Democratic process.The laws regarding voter ID's by design, effect a certain segment of the population. The laws regarding guns do not. They apply to the public at large. You may want to re-think this.

 

[Adagio]

That is a dishonest response. One does not have to show any of this -- liberty interests, rights, anything -- to establish that the Commerce Clause was misused. So, none of this proves that the Commerce Clause was used properly.

You're hardly one to consult on what is honest and what isn't. The reasoning for using it was given. The problem that you have is to show that it was misused. Simply asserting that it was, doesn't prove that it was. And it remains to this day. This precedent has continued for more than half a century. Clearly today's conservative court holds a different view of the Commerce Clause. In US v.Lopez the Court held 5-4 that Congress lacked the power to enact a statute that criminalized the possession of a gun within a school zone. The government argued that guns near schools, diminished school attendance and disrupted education, with adverse long-term effects on economic productivity and thus on the interstate movement of goods. bu the Courts conservative majority said that the chain of reasoning needed to link school violence to commerce was too attenuated and that the likely effects on commerce were not sufficiently "substantial".

Although the SCOTUS has clearly undertaken a doctrinal reassessment, the line that it has apparently drawn between economic and noneconomic activities has not so far threatened the heart of the governmental regulatory power that emerged during the New Deal era - the power to regualate economic enterprises based on anassumption that the national ecomomy is pervasively interdependent.

 

[Adagio]

In the name of net-neutrality and "fairness in the media" they should give equal time to the Newtown family members who oppose gun bans.

If you can find any, let us know.

 

[Jerry]

If you can find any, let us know.

Emotional Newtown dad: More gun control is not the answer « Hot Air

 

[Harshaw]

You're hardly one to consult on what is honest and what isn't. The reasoning for using it was given. The problem that you have is to show that it was misused. Simply asserting that it was, doesn't prove that it was.

I didn't make the claim that it was misused. I was pointing out that you didn't show it wasn't.

 

[Adagio]

My what a bit of hyperpartisan trolling bull**** this is.



No, you just want us to think that stream of yellow is gently falling rainwater.



This is not an abortion thread.

But the fact that every Homo sapiens lifespan begins at fertilization is a scientific fact an MD should know, not merely a religious belief. Duh?



No, I'm not. Quite to the contrary, frankly, but this isn't an abortion thread, so take your off-topic nonsense flamebait somewhere else.

This is not an abortion thread. But the fact that every Homo sapiens lifespan begins at fertilization is a scientific fact an MD should know, not merely a religious belief. Duh?

That's right. It isn't. But what is clearly obvious is that most of the argument on this is coming from phony Libertarian hypocrites. Your response illustrates your own hypocrisy. If your argument made any sense at all, then whatever age you are, you should add 9 months to it. But of course that wouldn't be your BIRTH DAY would it? We should change that to Conception Day. But beyond that nonsense, you're argument is irrelevent to the Libertarian position which insists that You own your own person and shall do with it without any interference from the government which shall NOT involve itself in any moral legislation which is exactly what this amounts to as you already know. At the moment of conception a Zygote has no nervous system, no brain, and no heartbeat. And the womans life already exist a priori to conception. It's a blob that over time will mature into something resembling sustainable life, and allowed to continue to mature can make it to birth and citizenship. A Zygote is not entitled to property rights. AND the argument is still irrelevent since the woman has the Libertarian held view that she has the right to her own body and neither you nor the government has any authority to inject itself into her decision on what to do with her body. The Libertarian view would also maintain that she has the right to sell her own body parts, like a kidney if that is her wish.

In Anarchy, State and Utopia (1974), Robert Nozick o! ers a philosophical defense of libertarian principles and a challenge to familiar ideas of distributive justice. He begins with the claim that individuals have rights “so strong and far-reaching” that “they raise the question of what, if anything, the state may do.” He concludes that “only a minimal state, limited to enforcing contracts and protecting people against force, theft, and fraud, is justified. Any more extensive state violates persons’
rights not to be forced to do certain things, and is unjustified. Prominent among the things that no one should be forced to do is
help other people. This line of reasoning takes us to the moral crux of the libertarian claim— the idea of self-ownership.

One argument for permitting the buying and selling of kidneys rests on the libertarian notion of self-ownership: If I own my own body, I should be free to sell my body parts as I please. As Nozick writes,“The central core of the notion of a property right in X . . . is the right to determine what shall be done with X.”

You simply cannot hold two opposing positions and claim that you are a Libertarian. If you are going to talk the talk, you'll have to walk the walk. If you are a Libertarian, you have no option other than to be Pro-choice. You do have the option to be a hypocrite. Duh!:doh

No, I'm not. Quite to the contrary

If you aren't pro-choice, then you aren't a Libertarian. You may be a conservative, but I'd suggest you stop claiming that you're something you aren't. You'll need to resolve that issue before you can make any legitimate claim to the Libertarian Philosophy.

 

[JayDubya]

If you aren't pro-choice, then you aren't a Libertarian.

I didn't read the rest of your stupid, spiteful rant and I don't plan on it.

Virtually everyone likes freedom of choice, and its most relevant usage is in economic terms. This thread is not about abortion, nor economics, nor your ignorant, incorrect logical fallacies.

 

[Adagio]

Emotional Newtown dad: More gun control is not the answer « Hot Air

That's it?? One guy? Where's his wife? What's her take? Hmmm He seems to be in a very distinct minority view on this subject. I would have thought that maybe you could produce a few hundred...or at least a dozen that shared this view.

 

[Jerry]

That's it?? One guy? Where's his wife? What's her take? Hmmm He seems to be in a very distinct minority view on this subject. I would have thought that maybe you could produce a few hundred...or at least a dozen that shared this view.

He's gotta have equal time, as per Fairness Doctrine. Every-time someone wants to put a Christmas tree on public property we hear all about equal representation; the media's always going off on Limbaugh's success while NPR goes down the drain; so it's time to show some integrity. Show the nation you aren't just using surrogate arguments to advance a political agenda.

Equal time bitches, time to pony up.

And that's just the one I found from a quick Google search. My search was by no means complete and exhaustive.

 

[Adagio]

I didn't make the claim that it was misused. I was pointing out that you didn't show it wasn't.

That would be trying to prove a negative. I'm not required in any rational debate to do that. It's like demanding that a person prove that he didn't do something. Prove that you didn't cheat on your wife for example. How could you prove that? Guilty until proven innocent? No. The basis for any critical thinking is that you support a claim with some kind of evidence. You don't demand that another person prove the non-existance of something. If you or somebody else wants to make the claim that it was dishonest or not constitutional, then you should make that argument. The burden of proof is on the person claiming that the use of the Commerce Clause is dishonest in making law. It's not up to me to prove that it ISN"T dishonest. I'm always astonished at the reasoning of Libertarians and those on the right. Where did you come up with this idea that proving a negative is a rational approach to anything?

 

[Adagio]

I didn't read the rest of your stupid, spiteful rant and I don't plan on it.

Virtually everyone likes freedom of choice, and its most relevant usage is in economic terms. This thread is not about abortion, nor economics, nor your ignorant, incorrect logical fallacies.

Good. Say goodnight Gracie. I'm glad that you like freedom of choice. But that goes without qualification. It doesn't only apply to economic terms. You either accept that maxim or you don't. You don't hedge on it. Not if you hope to maintain a consistancy in your views. Choice is Choice. Especially when it comes to an individuals right to their own self which is the BASIC Fundamental principle of Libertarianism. You can't claim that choice is fine in one thing, but you're against it in another and claim a Libertarain mantel. It doesn't work that way. That's the problem with every ideology. They demand a consistant adherence to the doctrine that you've already agreed with. You can't pick and choose and still call yourself a Libertarian. That's not how it works. It's like saying that you're a Christian...but you don't believe Jesus is the son of God. You can't cherry pick ideologies.

 

[TurtleDude]

My what a bit of hyperpartisan trolling bull**** this is.



No, you just want us to think that stream of yellow is gently falling rainwater.



This is not an abortion thread.

But the fact that every Homo sapiens lifespan begins at fertilization is a scientific fact an MD should know, not merely a religious belief. Duh?



No, I'm not. Quite to the contrary, frankly, but this isn't an abortion thread, so take your off-topic nonsense flamebait somewhere else.

He just makes crap up trying to justify his welfare socialism is actually motivated by altruism

Leftwingers constantly pretend "they care more" and they think caring more means using the government to forcibly make others contribute to the charity that the smug liberals take credit for. In reality, they support reactionary parasitic statism. the concept of live free and let others alone bothers the emotionally needy and the control freak busybody attitude

 

[TurtleDude]

That is a dishonest response. One does not have to show any of this -- liberty interests, rights, anything -- to establish that the Commerce Clause was misused. So, none of this proves that the Commerce Clause was used properly.

the FDR interpretations rejected 140 years of precedent (that culminated with the Schechter poultry case). after FDR won in 36 and threatened to back the court, the USSC completely abandoned years of precedent and started doing whatever FDR wanted.

 

[TurtleDude]

You might consider that people have contempt for those like yourself that offer only cynicism toward others and use words that may have a more significant meaning than your casual usage. Not having ever experienced rape, you indulge in a word that you can't even relate to in any meaningful way. Your constant overblown assertions of "disgusting anti-freedom agenda's" is a bore, and typical of the self-serving agenda of the so-called Libertarians that stopped thinking after reading an Ayn Rand novel that they couldn't even finish. I stopped reading comic books a long time ago. What's your excuse?

YOu sure make a lot of assumptions about others for a newbie on this board. Your hatred of libertarians demonstrates the reactionary parasitic statism agenda that feels threatened by freedom. tell us, why are you so enamored with controlling others?

 

[Adagio]

He's gotta have equal time, as per Fairness Doctrine. Every-time someone wants to put a Christmas tree on public property we hear all about equal representation; the media's always going off on Limbaugh's success while NPR goes down the drain; so it's time to show some integrity. Show the nation you aren't just using surrogate arguments to advance a political agenda.

Equal time bitches, time to pony up.

And that's just the one I found from a quick Google search. My search was by no means complete and exhaustive.

FAirness Doctrine??? The Fairness Doctrine was strongly opposed by prominent conservatives and libertarians who view it as an attack on First Amendment rights and property rights. Editorials in The Wall Street Journal and The Washington Times in 2005 and 2008 said that Democratic attempts to bring back the Fairness Doctrine have been made largely in response to conservative talk radio. The Fairness Doctrine was done away with years ago. Now you...a conservative want it back??? The AP reported that President Obama had no intention of reimposing the doctrine, but Republicans (led by Sen. Jim DeMint, R-S. Carolina) wanted more in the way of a guarantee that the doctrine would not be reimposed. And now...you want it??

The man you are referring to has had time apparently on Fox. It seems to me that it's probably a good idea for the networks to avoid any contentious debate among the Sandy Hook Parents and commentators on Fox for example that would be inclined to challenge them on their views, during the period of Grief. They aren't likely to want to be harrassed right now. Likewise it's probably a good idea to not have anybody on MSNBC challenge this mans views while he is also in that same grief period. Right now is not a time for either party to engage in debates with anybody on some network. So..the networks are inviting people that hold particular positions vis a vis Guns and the impact on their lives. I for one would not want to watch Sean Hannity or O'Really get into a debate with a person in deep grief over the loss of their child, and based on what I've seen out of Fox, that would likely happen. So it doesn't surprise me that the Sandy Hook Parents would avoid Fox. I'm not sure that would happen at MSNBC, and even less likely at CNN. But the man has aired his views on a sympathetic network. What's the problem?

Every-time someone wants to put a Christmas tree on public property we hear all about equal representation; the media's always going off on Limbaugh's success while NPR goes down the drain; so it's time to show some integrity. Show the nation you aren't just using surrogate arguments to advance a political agenda. Equal time bitches, time to pony up.

Bitches??:shock: Your entire argument probably needs to be re-thought.