citadel

Maybe freaking out was the wrong phrase. I was referring to the first few pages of the thread, where a few rounds of firearms misunderstanding were passed around a group, similar to pre-teen boys talking about girls in a middle school locker room.

Although you did seem to be freaking out a little over the gun buying spree after Obama was elected. As a survivor of the 2009 run on guns, I can tell you that there wasn't a rush to stockpile to start a 2nd (or 3rd, depending on your approach to history) US Civil War. The White House website plainly stated that Obama & Holder were going to push for another Assault Weapons Ban, which outlawed certain guns based on cosmetic features. Many new companies sprung up manufacturing AR lowers so that sportsman wouldn't be left with the lame restrictions if such a law passed, and all of them were backordered. It was a rush to get guns and ammo that would be "grandfathered" if the 94 AWB were reinstated. People were getting carry permits for the same reason, for fear that they wouldn't be able to later if they didn't immediately. Much of the fear was fueled by internet rumor, and every gun store clerk loved telling people to "Get it before the ban passes." Empty shelves drove the buying panic even further.

Gun stores were crowded beyond belief, and the people buying were of all different political affiliations, including people who voted for Obama for one reason or another. I talked to people and overheard still more. Most of the guns being sold were small defensive weapons; no one could keep .380 or .32 in stock, even the places that were selling the pocket pistols in troves. Rifle ammo was much easier to find than the little calibers, but ammo was so hard to find overall that I would buy whatever I saw in the store so I could trade it with my buddies for some other caliber that I used.

It wasn't a bunch of middle aged Conservative white dudes buying bullets, crosses and kerosene for their next rally, it was people from all walks of life who were scared that they wouldn't be able to defend themselves and their loved ones during a national financial crisis when the politicians in power were talking about banning guns. I rubbed elbows with black female single parents, elderly retired couples, newlyweds, and all kinds of other people. If you had been there you would have seen it too.

I disagree. I love my country, but I'm not going to kick the shit out of someone for burning the flag. Even if I did, I'm still responsible for my own actions. Religious freedom doesn't mean that every religion is free from being offended by other people's beliefs or behavior. Plus, I'm not close to many Muslims, but in my experience they've all been rational human beings, not emotionally impulsive cartoon characters.

The_Jazz

Damn you, citadel, for bringing a calm, rational conservative voice to this thread! I demand more whargarble!

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

dlish

wow.. i only just clocked into this thread..

usually i dont click on threads with american politics..anything with the words, conservatives, republicans and tea party have me steering away from the thread. it wasnt until today that i opened this thread up.

and i'll be damned.

longliveusa, your knowledge of islam is nonsense. you really do need to READ the Quran instead of taking information from televangelists. the least that will do is not make you look like a total ass in here.

just for your information, the 72 virgins that you do refer to and not mentioned in the Quran. Not once. Surprised? im sure a lot of people are. because not many people like yourself bother to read the Quran. id also note that the '72' virgins are not only reserved for 'martyrs', but for everyone. I think you need to do a little bit more reading bud.


a quick search on wiki just to prove my point

i could go on and pull out a heaps of mistakes that longlive has mentioned, but then, whats the use?

im enjoying this read... pass the popcorn please

__________________
An injustice anywhere, is an injustice everywhere

I always sign my facebook comments with ()()===========(}. Does that make me gay?
- Filthy

Baraka_Guru

With all due respect, this is Tilted Paranoia, and I reserve the right to fulfill the expectation of playing up some of my baser emotions on a variety of subjects. But I do appreciate your reasoned response. It's important to keep in mind, however, that as a Canadian, the idea of stockpiling arms is foreign to me. We don't don't have a long history of violence like Americans do. We have no declaration of independence, revolution, or ensuing constitution; we simply have the Constitution Acts of 1867 and 1982, during the time of Queens Victoria and Elizabeth, respectively. We had no civil war; only a few rebellions predating the formation of the country and a few problems with a guy named Louis Riel. Distrust of government isn't a national pastime; ridicule of government is. Violence isn't an expectation on all levels of society; it's an aberration.

Despite what you might have been told, Canadians are quite different from Americans, especially when you look at core values. Sociologically, we're quite different as well. And, of course, you get the geographic differences, being both our nations are so large.

Anyway, my point is that when I see news articles south of the border that describe a fevered market activity with regard to stockpiling weapons and ammunition---and in response to the first black president being elected, and in the aftermath of a two-term neocon president, and in a post-9/11 America---I don't see that as a regular part of the news cycle. I understand that owning guns is normalized for Americans, and that all walks of life own them, but I was more concerned about the more extreme and fringe set who were not only stocking up; they were spewing rhetoric that was a bit more of a concern when you value a reasonable and stable society.

This isn't a direct response to what you quoted of me. You're shifting into a comparison to burning the flag and your own response. You're also shifting to what religious freedom means instead of looking at the most important issue of burning Qurans: it's not a reasoned criticism; it's inciting a response. The burning of books is never about criticism; it's an objection, an outright disapproval. The act of burning a book suggests that something isn't worthy of existing and should be destroyed. The act of burning a book symbolizes what should be done to the very ideas contained therein.

If someone wants to criticize Islam, they should read the damn thing, not burn it. It's my belief that any American who chooses to burn the Quran has little value for the idea of freedom of religion, because if they truly believed in the freedom of religion, they wouldn't be burning the holy book of other religions. If Christians have a problem with the most fringe groups of Islam, then deal with the problems: oh, I don't know....work towards liberating and educating their girls and women; work towards finding ways to prevent the alienation and radicalization of young men, etc.

If you have a problem with violent Islamofascism, I think the last thing you should be doing is burning the Quran. The only thing that says to me (and I'm no a Muslim) is, "I hate your religion; I wish to destroy it." That's not a reasoned criticism.

I know, right?! Tilted Paranoia; holy fuck!

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Walt

I can't tell if you guys know you're being trolled and are just playing along for the fun of it? If so; well done.

-------
SS Edmund Fitzgerald - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Good Friday Massacre - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

Or a President. Seriously, what kind of half-assed country doesn't have a President (except for 1939 Germany)? Who do you even turn to to provide beer and act as a mediator for dickish college professors and overzealous cops?

All you need is Tina Turner and Canadia will be a full-on Barter Town.

__________________
Calmer than you are...

Charlatan

By not having a President or an elected Upper House, the Canadian Prime Minister, when he or she has a majority government, is the most powerful leader in the Western world within the Canadian border. There is very little reason to think that any Canadian government would change this.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

Baraka_Guru

The Right Honourable Joseph Jacques Jean Chrétien, PC, OM, CC, QC was the greatest tyrant in the history of North America. He is rivaled only by his spiritual and political predecessor, The Right Honourable Joseph Philippe Pierre Yves Elliott Trudeau, CC, CH, PC, QC, FSRC.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

citadel

Muslims hate overalls and cowboy hats!

I held back at first because of longliveusa's nails on a chalkboard posts. I kinda sorta agree with him on a few basic Constitutional ideals, but...ugh, I don't want to be associated with that. The deep end isn't deep enough for his tastes.

Fair enough.

For whatever it's worth, I don't think most Americans were stockpiling arms in the sense we're discussing. I know a few people who bought dozens of EBR's ("Evil Black Rifles," guns that have been demonized by the media but that are less powerful than the common hunting rifle) because they anticipated a ban coming, and with the lessons learned during the ban in effect from 1994-2004 they knew that they could sell them for a lot more than they paid for them if a ban passed, and because they knew that if there was a chance they wanted something now, they should get it while they still could. When the government and everyone else is talking about a ban, internet rumor and panic hit.

My friends and I bought a whole bunch of ammo at the time because we shoot. The shelves everywhere were empty, stores were setting limits on the number of boxes they'd sell to a customer in a given day, every website was backordered, sold out, or not taking orders. One friend of mine flirted it up with the ammo clerk at a local WalMart and she'd call him to tell him when a shipment was coming in; we'd show up with a bunch of people and buy everything we could. It probably sounds extreme to an outsider, "What do you need all that ammo for!?!" But a typical day at the range for me is firing 200-300 rounds of ammo. If every store is sold out, and when they have stock they're refusing to sell you more than 2-6 boxes of 50 at a time, you have to get creative. Everyone was bartering, I didn't even own a .380 at the time but I bought every box of it that I could because I knew I could trade it for whatever caliber I wanted. .32 and .25 were hard to find as well but not as desirable, I think it's because the market had just been flooded with the Ruger LCP, Diamondback, and the well known KelTec P3AT, which are all pocket sized .380's popular with the concealed carry crowd.

I had to take fewer trips to the range because even if you had ammo, there was a very real concern that you wouldn't be able to get more, whether because of a ban or because everyone else was panic buying. Ammo companies began tripling their output, running 24x7x365 and they still couldn't keep up with the demand. Quality control suffered because of it, they were putting out bad product, and people still bought every single box they made.

Police departments couldn't qualify their officers because they couldn't find ammo, other departments were buying huge numbers of it. Competition shooters who easily shoot 10,000 rounds a month were getting what they could to keep from losing their competitive edge. The wars in the Middle East were obviously creating some ammo demand, plus ammo components like brass and copper were through the roof pricewise (remember all the news stories about copper thefts at the time?). It created a perfect storm in the market, that was compounded by many thousands deciding that they just wanted to get into the sport before they lost their chance.

What's also interesting is that most places saw record numbers of people applying for concealed carry permits, there was a backlog everywhere. If people are looking to start a revolution, turning in firearms related paperwork with your name, address, picture and fingerprints probably isn't the best way to prepare. Unemployment was shooting up, big banks were on the brink, and police departments were laying off cops. There was a greater percieved danger by many of crime or of a loss of their gun rights.

A few loose screws were talking about revolution, but almost everyone I knew and talked to in that timeframe was basically realizing that if they didn't have it in their hands imediately, there was no guarantee that they would be able to have it in the future.

While I agree that America has a problem with violent crime, a lot of what's reported is spin, the result of skewed statistics, especially when it comes to the # of firearms deaths. That's veering off topic, but I think it's worth mentioning.

I didn't vote for Obama, but I don't think for a second McCain-Palin would have been anything more than a few degrees better for the nation's overall well being. I can honestly say his skin color, race, religious beliefs or whatever else are irrelevant to me as a voter; the only thing I want to see is the government abiding by the rules laid out for it in the Constitution (yes, the whole thing, not cherry picked things I like), and nowadays, stopping the snowballing national debt before we collapse financially.

But the American media, which is left wing/centrist to me, did a great job of incorrectly reporting the run on guns and ammo. By the time they got around to reporting it, it was old news. They also mocked most gun owners for thinking that some kind of a ban was coming, because in their 6-8 month delay to report on the situation, the info about it was taken down off of the White House site. They reported some of the NICS numbers (the background check system used when you buy a gun from a store in the US), but they really didn't get the whole picture. They missed other important details, like how long term storage food supply sellers were also sold out, especially after stories hit about the food crisis in Detroit.

I think most of the people were afraid of civil unrest, of the loss of a stable society. People were preparing for the worst while hoping for the best. I traded hard to find ammo with Democrats, Republicans, Libertarians, die hard Obama/McCain/Paul fans, and a few grumpy "I don't care about politics" type folks. I bought AR-15 parts from cops and soldiers, stood in line to buy handguns behind bleeding heart liberal college students and overweight housewives. I found it somewhat funny to see so many cars parked in gun store parking lots and at gunshows with bumper stickers for longtime anti-gun politicians. Some of the loudmouths were rightwingnuts, and the news tried hard to paint it as one sided, but it was old news by the time the Wall Street Journal squeaked out a story full of blatant lies and mistruths.

Fear and Greed Have Sales of Guns and Ammo Shooting Up - WSJ.com

The militia movement had it's peak in the early mid 1990's with common law courts and the various standoffs with FBI & ATF. The guys who are a part of them are robbers, rapists, thieves, and murderers, they're not much different from any other violent gang out there. But while I have met a tiny number of racist, anti government gun owners in my time submerged in the gun community (who I veer away from, I might add), I haven't heard anything other than rumors about the kind of militias we'd hear about 15-20 years ago. I think most of the talk is from people on the left trying to villify people on the right as violent extremists who use guns to fight the government, in the same way that folks on the right villify people on the left as socialist/communist extremists who use the governments guns to take their money to run indoctrinating social programs.

I still disagree with you on the part about inciting a response. There is nothing violent about burning a book. It displays ignorance and is a throwback to Guy Montag or that rally with Hitler I saw in an Indiana Jones movie, but there's nothing physically dangerous or threatening about it. No rational human is going to be spurred to violence because of a moron with a lighter, no matter which side of the equation they're on. If I burn a book it says pretty loudly that I'm an asshole, and probably full of some strong bias, prejudice or hate. But it shouldn't say that people who read whichever sacred text is being burned should turn their deep offense into a riot or attack of somekind.

Religious freedom isn't limited to reasoned criticism. Many athiests probably think that monothiests or even polythiests aren't capable of reason when it comes to religious disagreement, and vice versa. From an emotionally detached religious freedom point of view, I see no difference between the WBC anti-homosexual protests, pro-gay marriage rallies, Muslim extremists burning the US flag, or Christian extremists burning the Quran. They are people expressing their religious views (to some extent, I realize there are a few hairs worth splitting here depending on your own religious views) of one kind or another, that other people may find extremely offensive, who would be disturbed to their very core by the behavior. Still, a big part of religious freedom means allowing other people to do things in the name of their whacky religion that might piss you off.

All that changes when there is an immediate, direct threat of some kind, but I don't see that in book burning by itself.

I agree 100%.

Doesn't that just make them the most powerful leader in...Canada?

Charlatan

I think you missed the point.

The President of the USA has power but many checks on that power. This is true of most Western leaders. There are few strong checks on the power of a Canadian PM in a majority government. He or she can enact the laws and budgets that he or she wishes to.

This isn't to say the PM can go beyond the law, there is a Supreme Court and a constitution but withing these constraints pretty much anything is possible. The US President doesn't have even close to this sort of power in the US.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

citadel

I didn't know that about Canada before you posted it, but I think you missed the jocular nature of my observation.

Baraka_Guru

Oh, I'm sure it was exaggerated by the media, but I'm not concerned about the average American. This thread was always about that subset of the militia folk who really think that the government is out to get them, that socialism is coming, and the liberals are destroying freedom, etc.

And the subset to that subset I mentioned above is what worry me the most. Those who are "getting ready" for "when the shit hits the fan" and the shit is going to hit the fan, and they're going to be ready. It's this subset of the subset who've "had enough" and "aren't going to take it anymore" and must "fight and die for freedom or freedom itself will die...." Blah, blah, blah. I know this is a minority, but it sounds like an ignorant and readily violent minority. And, hey, this is Tilted Paranoia. Can I not entertain the idea of pockets of people around the country who are ready to band together and do something stupid?

And what would it take to set something bigger off? Play on others' fears and frustrations? Are there powder kegs to these nutjobs' fuses?

You say America "has a problem"; I say it's an epidemic. Just looking at the stats, it's appalling. I don't watch American local news, which is where you'll find the biggest spin and sensationalized responses. There is nothing (or very little anyway) popping up on this Canadian's radar that would suggest spin. The Canadian homicide rate is 1.9 per 100,000 people (2004). The U.S. has something like 5.5 homicides for every 100,000 (2004), which is more than double the average for industrialized nations (2.5 per 100,000), and as you can see, this approaches nearly 3 times the Canadian rate. So if I move down to the U.S., I can expect to nearly triple the likelihood of being murdered, all depending on where I move, as I'm certain it's far worse in certain areas and at least marginally better in others.

Beyond these numbers, though, I admit that I don't know much about how violent the U.S. is. I haven't spent much time there. All I know is if I look at the numbers, there are a lot of murders. I'm not sure how skewed the gun statistics are, but these numbers mean something, don't they?

I think it's in Obama's interests to get the economy and the deficit back on track. I'm not an American voter, so it's a non-issue for me with regard to my political expectations, but I sincerely think that he played an important role in averting economic disaster. It doesn't take foreign economies/investors much to walk away from American interests. As much as the deficit looks alarming, the consequences of not having done enough were far more dire. But it's much easier to see what's there than what "could have happened." It's like a bitter medicine. You complain about how it tastes like shit going down and it might even give you the runs, but, hey, at least you aren't dead from a festering disease. Not yet anyway.

Say what? Seriously, it all depends on what outlet you're talking about. Sure, any media outlet or program that has terms like democracy and truth combined with out and now in their titles are going to have liberal slant. But when you're talking about mainstream national network media, you aren't going to find more than a left-like nuance. This is big media. Anything left of centre-right is considered "leftist" or "socialist" in America (which is silly, really). So despite what you hear coming out of MSNBC, CNN, or ABC News, they are hardly left of centre. Left of centre approaches the category of social democracy, which is a strong slant towards workers' rights, fair trade (vs. globalization and free trade), environmentalism, social justice, universal health care, etc. Those are fringe topics in American media. Heck, they are to a large part even in Canada. And the centre left looks at these issues as a matter of course, not some pipe dream.

But is the misreporting because of some liberal or lefty agenda? Or are they doing what news does? If it bleeds it leads. Sensationalization sells. Like I said, I don't really know what the media is like as much as I do here in Canada. But even here, again, most media barely ventures left of centre despite the fact that a large proportion of our federal government seats are filled with out-of-the-closet social democrats. We're talking about guys and gals who would be literally reviled by uncountable Americans.

Maybe a thread on the politicization of guns is in order. I know you gun guys like to keep your Tilted Weapons politics-free, but if a big complaint of yours is media perceptions of guns, then why not talk about it?

I'm not sure I've made a point here, but I guess, generally, it was a bit odd to see the market frenzy regarding guns and ammo when Obama was elected, and I think it had more to do with concern about certain selective bans. Most Americans aren't gun nuts, I get that, but the interest from my perspective is of the gun nuts.

This statement is made with the assumption that burning the Quran is no different than burning any other book. There is a difference. There is a Muslim belief that the physical manifestation of each Quran is sacred, and that defiling or destroying it is an affront to their faith and to Allah. To many Muslims, destroying a Quran would be as devastating as destroying important American landmarks would be to American patriots. There is value in the physical manifestation itself, not just the ideas. You can destroy the Statue of Liberty and say, "Well, at least the idea of liberty is still intact!" Yet, I'm sure you'd have some rather angry and violent Americans ready to exact revenge. At least one, let's say.

Look, I'm not an apologist of violence. I'm not saying a Quran burning is an excuse to riot or murder Americans. What I am saying is that those who burn Qurans are either ignorant or know damn well that this is the kind of response they'll get. Like I said above, if you want to criticize the worst aspects of Islam, there are many ways to do it and still keep my respect. Burning a Quran doesn't do that. It targets the religion in its entirety and it has attached to it very real social consequences. It is folly.

I get that. But my point is that if you value religious freedom, you don't burn Qurans, Bibles, Torahs, Vedas, Sutras, etc.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

citadel

There are certainly people who think that the American government is being destroyed by leftie swine. There are also people preparing for when the SHTF. But I don't think the two are always connected. For most people, SHTF is riots, environmental disaster, social unrest, etc. Stocking up on guns, ammo, food, water, etc. isn't just because you think the Redcoats are coming. Look at Hurricane Katrina, the LA riots, major snowstorms, race riots, earthquakes, floods, mudslides, or even smaller localized issues like long term power outages. Will your family have food? Will you be able to protect them? Will your car have gas? Simple things that most Americans never dream to prepare for, living paycheck to paycheck, whose lives will devolve into complete chaos if their paycheck isn't direct deposited on time, or if the local grocery store is closed for a few days.

I'm sure there's people who want to revolt, it's being discussed in blogs and other media pretty regularly now. It concerns me too, I don't want to see one. Many seem to forget that the founding fathers fought a brutal house to house set of battles for many years against the Brits before we had our independence. I think even a smallscale rebellion would turn into a SHTF situation, not the shooting at soldiers kind, but the figure out how to feed your family and protect them from predators taking advntage of the situation kind.

Something like half the murders in the US are of convicted felons, even more are males aged 16-25. Looking at flat numbers makes it seem like grandmothers are being lynched in the streets. The huge majority of violent crimes other than murder are committed by repeat offenders, career criminals. There is definitely a problem, the source of it is probably complex as any other societal issue, but who's compiling stats and why plays a role in what you hear.

I think he slapped a bandaid on a gushing wound. The simple fact is that we spend much more than we make. The debt is outrageous. Neither side of the two party system is willing to take an honest look at which purse strings need to be completely severed.

I think it's the latter. News is a business.

I'd love to. That section hasn't seen much action lately anyway.

It's certainly possible that there'd be one person upset with the loss of Lady Liberty. The difference is that national monuments aren't privately owned items that can be obtained at a local bookstore. Publicly destroying personal property is not a crime, no matter what it represents to the people who don't own it.

While I agree with you, my point is that religious freedom is a two way street.

Charlatan

It's funny that there wasn't talk of militias and armed insurrection when Bush was in power but I certainly remember these types of groups during Clinton's tenure.

__________________
"My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars."
- Old Man Luedecke

dksuddeth

holy thread raising, batman

I realize this it tilted paranoia and all, but besides BS supreme court opinions meant to wither away the inalienable rights that the framers fought for, can someone who is knowledgeable about the constitution show me the text where it tells the government they just created that it has the power to put limits on the rights of the people?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

We've been down this road before, dk. If rights were absolute, then prisoners would have firearms in their cells with them and Bradley Manning wouldn't be in a cell at all.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

this is not true at all. I'm sure this strawman is just one of several that gets used alot, but the 5th Amendment provides for the suspension of inalienable rights through due process of law, so NO, prisoners would not have firearms in their cell. It's a very stupid argument. At least try to make a valid one.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

It's completely true, and the argument is valid. It proves that rights aren't absolute. The suspension of inalienable rights? Say it out loud: "The suspension of inalienable rights."

Suspension: The temporary prevention of something from continuing or being in force or effect. The interruption of, cessation of, stoppage of—the dissolution, disbandment, termination....

Inalienable: Unable to be taken away from or given away by the possessor. Inviolable, absolute, sacrosanct, indefeasible....

The Fifth Amendment:

No person shall be held to answer for a capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offense to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

(Emphasis mine)

No one shall be deprived of life, liberty, or property without due process of the law. The law, therefore, allows for the deprivation of life, liberty, or property. The United States Constitution itself states that rights aren't absolute.

Absolute: not subject to any limitation; unconditional. Unrestricted, unrestrained, unbounded, boundless, infinite, ultimate, total, supreme, unconditional....

Rights are not absolute. The Constitution outlines that quite clearly, and that is my argument. This is why prisoners do not have the right to bear arms. This is why Manning has a weak defense if he claims a right to free speech.

You are right, however, and I agree with you that it's about the law. If a law is deemed just and is passed and enacted, and then subsequently enforced, it has the power to limit rights to those who violate the law.

If someone burns a Quran and it directly is a cause of violence, there are likely laws in place that apply. This is where you get a conflict between a right to free speech/expression and being beholden to the law.

Rights are not absolute, and there is a reason for it.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

While freedom of belief is absolute, freedom to practice religion is limited in many ways, including not treating your children with modern medicine. Slander and defamation are limitations on the right of free speech. The freedom to assemble is not absolute in the case when it causes health hazards, such as during an outbreak. Freedom to petition, like speech, can be limited when it includes slander, defamation, and falsehoods, according to McDonald v. Smith, 472 U.S. 479. I can go on and on and on and on about how our most important Constitutional rights aren't absolute, but I don't think I need to. It's generally understood by most people.

dksuddeth

not seeing the forest for the trees. cling to that then.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

I'm sorry, who's clinging?

Prisoners had their ostensibly inalienable rights taken away.

What's the big picture I'm missing?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

dksuddeth

what are you missing? it's like will said, it's generally accepted by most people that no right is absolute, but someone tell me what the very first case that was decided that says 'no right is absolute'. Most people refer to Wendell Holmes opinion where he says 'can't yell fire in a crowded theater'. 1919 was the year. This is the forest you're missing. Most people stand by the axiom that the courts are the only ones to interpret the constitution, which of course is completely false, but since it's been 'accepted' by most people, that's just the way it is now. The founders would never have stood for that, which is probably why the government waited so long to start implementing that ideology.

The truth is that we the people wrote the constitution, not the government, therefore we the people are the ones that interpret the constitution. Much like the tyrants that decided Dred v. Scott (wrongly I might add), we the people took corrective action in writing and ratifying the 14th Amendment. It apparently wasn't enough because the courts have implemented their own brand of social engineering through that very amendment.

In the beginning of this nation, it was believed that rights were indeed absolute, whether you choose to believe that is irrelevant because that's just the way it is. nearly every framers writings and all the commentaries of the day point out that fact that congress cannot do certain things, no matter how much they may want to.

Now, in this day and age, i'm sure most people are comfortable with having a group of people that are not answerable to we the people judge what we can and cannot do and call it constitutional. A classic evasion of responsibility, that way if a case comes down that people don't like, like citizens united, then we can simply say that they were wrong, but do nothing about it. it's just plain giving up on our lives and liberties.

most of you all here will not agree with my views, which is sad, but matters very much in the way of things. The government will continue to enforce THEIR wants and desires unless a huge amount of the populace disagrees. It's that way with freedom of speech, right to bear arms, freedom from unreasonable search and seizure, and private property rights.

It all comes down to people not agreeing with certain rights, while others don't like the rights of another group. plain political hackery and ideology, as flawed and functional like a square peg in a round hole. Until people come to the conclusion that only they, and they alone, can enforce their rights against any government, we the people will continue to see the eventual removal of our rights as they get replaced with government authorized actions. It's terribly pathetic that most people in this nation desire this.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

You're muddying the waters. Are we talking about the courts (law) or Congress (lawmakers)?

I think we'd be on the same page and agree the unjust laws are undesirable, especially if they infringe, unjustly, on rights. However, to say that rights are absolute is plain false. Would the founders be okay with allowing prisoners the right to bear arms? No. Did they have capital punishment back then? What about the right to life and liberty? Were the framers against prisons too? The framers weren't idiots. They didn't want to assume it would be okay to afford lawbreakers the exact same (supposedly inalienable) rights. We strip people of rights. Is that unconstitutional? No. Because it's right in there in the Fifth Amendment. So long as the due process of the law is carried out, rights can be limited and indeed are.

I don't want to make it appear we're disagreeing if we're talking about two separate things. If you're concerned about the courts misinterpreting the Constitution or about Congress making unjust laws, then so be it. Talk about that. But you can't just drop in and say something to effect of "Oh, hey, rights are absolute and no one can put limits on them—tell me where it says the government can limit rights" when it's right there in the Constitution: rights are limited by law.

I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but point out to me where it says rights cannot be taken away under any circumstances. Because that's what absolute means. It means that rights cannot be limited or taken away. What was the purpose of the Fifth Amendment but to state how this should be done?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

roachboy

criminy. here we are again back at the circular origin of natural-law style claims.

the natural law position seems to involve mysticism now, as it is possible to claim what the magickal Founders would and would not have tolerated quite apart from any documentary evidence. it's a kind of channeling. i'm always impressed to see people who channel. the problem is that this stuff is best at a seance. it's meaningless political argument, even in paranoia.

natural law is a style of claim made to justify breaking with the previous legal framework. it relies on an imaginary state prior to that arrangement the precepts or rights of which that previous system violated.

in sociological terms, it's a version of the style of arguments "heretics" used against the existing christian system. all the features are in place.

that's the level at which natural law exists. there is no other.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

dksuddeth

strawman, again.

fallacious argument. either you're being obtuse for the sake of being obtuse, or you refuse to see the forest. rights ARE absolute, up until a person has had DUE PROCESS OF LAW. due process of law doesn't mean that congress can outlaw an otherwise inalienable right, president can sign off on it, and the courts can say 'we agree'. due process of law is a person committing a crime, being tried, then maybe convicted, and if convicted, has his rights supsended to serve whatever sentence he/she is given. once released, rights are restored. that is what i mean by absolute.



QUOTE=Baraka_Guru;2894422]I'm not a Constitutional scholar or anything, but point out to me where it says rights cannot be taken away under any circumstances. Because that's what absolute means. It means that rights cannot be limited or taken away. What was the purpose of the Fifth Amendment but to state how this should be done?[/QUOTE]

I've pointed it out, the 5th Amendment allows a persons rights to be suspended while under sentence of the courts, then once released has their rights restored, fully.

---------- Post added at 03:36 PM ---------- Previous post was at 03:32 PM ----------

derp derp derp. natural law derp, heretics only derp.

your argument relies on an ideology that are rights are granted by the state and can be modified by the state, that we live and die at the states whims or not. it's all a pile of crap.

now, i'm not saying we're given our rights by God or any other supernatural being. I'm saying that we have rights simply because we're human beings, in other words 'natural law'. I can see you don't think natural law exists, that we must be governed (read that as controlled) by people we choose to be our betters in life, probably because your opinion of humanity is that we suck ass and can't be counted on to know right from wrong, therefore we must have elected babysitters. I discount and discredit that theory out of hand.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

dk--->i find it amusing that you and only you are free of the constraints that bind the rest of us simply because you can't figure out what natural law actually is.
but whatever--this isn't a discussion i feel like having.

suffice it to say that there's one place in which we might actually agree--that the passive spectatorship of an american polity is largely fucked.

where we disagree is on everything else.

even if it is true that there is some Natural Law that dangles like predicates from the Magickal Entity called the soul or whatever other metaphysical construct you prefer to add in its place, and if its the same everywhere for everyone, then it's functionally meaningless.

what matters is how people mobilize politically and what they mobilize around.

you want---as always---a return to a fantasy 18th century. i think that's insane. you like to fantasize about isolated individuals in bunkers full of guns. if that's freedom for you, then you can have it. i don't like basements. i am not enamored of guns. i'd rather do almost anything else than be in an basement full of guns.

i prefer to dream about a revolution that goes forward in time, when i still dream about revolution.

people aren't free because of what or who they *are*---they're free because of what they *do* and more importantly what they do collectively.

couldn't really be further apart than that.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Willravel

Do you want libel and slander legalized? Do you want me to be able to call your boss and accuse you of pedophilia in order to get you fired, as an example, without any legal recourse? Do you want parents not giving the children they're legally responsible for necessary medical care, putting them in mortal danger because of their religious beliefs?

Even if we leave aside the fact that the framers and the Judiciary have made it perfectly clear from day one that rights aren't 100% absolute, are you prepared to live with the consequences of an absolutist, slippery slope fallacy understanding of rights?

dksuddeth

another strawman.

if you call up my boss and tell them i'm molesting 13 years olds that gets me fired and I sue, do I sue you because you violated the boundaries of the first amendment or do I sue you for the damages you caused me because you used your first amendment?

this is the flaw in most peoples thinking, is that you let yourselves be led by black robed tyrants in to thinking there are limits to your rights, when in actuality what is happening is you are being punished for damages you did to another person because you badly exercised your rights.

this is what i mean by absolute rights. you say I can't yell fire in a crowded theater, but am I gagged when i walk in that theater? is there some magical bracelet or necklace I'm forced to wear that prevents me from uttering the word fire? I say I can indeed yell fire in a crowded theater, especially if there is a fire. If I yell fire and there is none, am I charged with yelling fire in a crowded theater? no, i'm charged with anything from disorderly conduct up to negligent homicide.

so no, there are no limits on rights, only damages for misuse of your rights.

---------- Post added at 04:25 PM ---------- Previous post was at 04:22 PM ----------

that's a shame you don't feel like having the discussion, because it could indeed provide interesting insight in to things. that being said, I find it amusing that you let yourself be shackled, like most others, because you can't figure out what natural law actually is.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Baraka_Guru

DK, I refuse to respond to you until you understand the meaning of the word absolute.

It isn't difficult.

I'm not being obtuse, I'm trying to help you understand what absolute means. These aren't strawmen so much as demonstrations outlining your lack of logic.

Either something is absolute or it isn't. I've posted this to you before, and yet you don't seem to understand.

We can go beyond the words, but you still don't understand.

You are an adamant defender of alienable inalienable rights. Don't you see how confusing this is to me?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

Willravel

You're not even splitting hairs at this point; there's one hair and you're flatly saying there are two. Absolute free speech would mean I could say what I want where I want in what way I want without any limitation whatsoever. Libel and slander prevent that, therefore they limit absolute free speech. That's not a strawman, it's fundamental legal theory.

Misusing your rights would have no penalties if the rights were absolute. That's the point we're all making.

Baraka_Guru

It's really that simple. Rights extend as far as the law. If you break the law, your rights come into question. Otherwise, how could we take away one's right to life, liberty, or property? If rights were absolute, it would be illegal to take away one's life (capital punishment), liberty (incarceration), or property (fines and other penalties to income and assets).

Absolute and inalienable rights cannot be taken away. I believe that most human rights are afforded this status. For example, the right to be free from cruel and unusual punishment is inalienable. There is no moral justification for issuing such a punishment. Any government---any party whatsoever----who issues cruel and unusual punishment is violating a right. Under no circumstances should anyone be subject to such treatment. That is an inalienable right.

Other rights don't have such characteristics. As much as we can say that we all have the right to life, liberty, and property, the fact remains that there are laws that indicate these rights can be revoked.

Personally, I think capital punishment is morally objectionable. I believe that there are no circumstances where it is just or moral to take another's life; yet, there are some justice systems that permit such actions. Anyone who considers themselves staunch defenders of the right to live should oppose the idea of capital punishment within any form of government.

However, I do understand the dire nature of criminal activity and so do support the idea of suspending the right to liberty of those who break laws that suggest a removal from society would be in order. At the same time, there are crimes that would suggest financial penalties are in order. In these cases, the suspension of the right to one's liberty or one's property is necessary as a penalty for breaking laws that are deemed just by the society. Without these penalties there lacks any consequences for breaking such laws that are in place to maintain a certain level of social harmony.

This is why rights aren't absolute. As much as you have rights to liberty and property, if you are in breach of society's laws, you must face reasonable consequences. In breaking certain laws, you are responsible to own up to your actions. This may include giving up your right to liberty for a set time frame. This may also include giving up your right to certain assets of yours. Either way, this indicates that rights aren't absolute. You are entitled to your rights as far as you are able to carry them within the confines of law abidance.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

citadel

Negative. The 5th Amendment is not the Constitution, it was ratified afterwards. That's what makes it an Amendment.

A better question would be, would the founders be OK with a full restoration of rights upon walking out the doors of a prison?

They actually wrote a few documents saying what they would and would not tolerate. Then they acted on them.

A very good point.

What's interesting to this discussion is the death of George Washington, who had some strong views on these rights. Bloodletting was a common practice, and widely accepted at the time. Nowadays we know a lot more about the body, and get a good laugh at the intelligence of doctors back then. If you were a parent in the 1800's with a medical understanding based in 2011, would you allow a doctor to drain your child's blood to reduce a fever? Obvious violence against a child is clearly abuse, but where do we draw the line between medical "fact" and religious/personal medical "belief"? If your child had an infection and you wished to provide them with mold to fight it, how sane would you appear to the learned medical community of that day? They would have thought you were out of your mind. Ever read about Ignaz Semmelweis?

What drives the assumption that the parent is crazier than the dirty handed, penicillin ignorant drainer of blood?

Not even self defense? Or are you referring to the government & death penalty here?

Tully Mars

Umm, aren't amendments, by law, part of the USC?

__________________
I used to drink to drown my sorrows, but the damned things have learned how to swim- Frida Kahlo

Vice President Starkizzer Fan Club

roachboy

they wouldn't be pure. the bill of rights is a problem, presumably.

citadel: i'm entirely aware of these writings. and to don my historian hat for a moment, there's no way methodologically that the federalist papers or the fragmentary minutes of the constitutional convention or the correspondence of the participants even can be used in the way that strict constructionists would do. it's incoherent as history. but it does allow for disengenuous mysticism. by that i mean simple statements about preferences originating with ultra-right wing marginals/neofascists are put into the mouths of the "framers" or "founders" as if they are basically finger puppets.

bad history, bad interpretation, reactionary politics.
defend it if you want.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

Baraka_Guru

I don't want to remain off the path for too long. The core question, I believe, is whether rights are absolute given that there are limitations in exercising them. Sure, you can say you have the right of free speech and can say anything you goddamn well want, but the fact remains that there are laws in place that prevent you from communicating certain information. Tell me, if Manning has such an inalienable right to free speech, why isn't he being released without charges? Or would you say he does have the right but still has to pay the consequences? Either way, his right doesn't seem very absolute to me. Can someone please explain to me why that is?

Not even in self-defense. However, I was referring to the death penalty, but in my view it applies to all circumstances.

I think taking one's life even in the most extreme of self-defense circumstances still has attached to it moral repercussions, if not a legal ones. But I don't want to stray from the topic.

I believe that no government has the moral authority to take the life of a citizen under the purview of justice.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

filtherton

I'm still baffled by the notion that the founding fathers' input is at all relevant to anything. If an idea can't be supported without relying heavily on selective interpretation of the words of someone who has been dead for centuries, then perhaps the idea isn't all that compelling.

dksuddeth

cruel and unusual punishment happens EVERY SINGLE DAY! This is why your argument fails.

inalienable rights are absolute. that doesn't mean that the government won't infringe on them or revoke them unconstitutionally and still be either exonerated or rewarded for it.

---------- Post added at 11:46 AM ---------- Previous post was at 11:42 AM ----------

this is an absolutely insane ideology. the founding of this nation rests on those words of people who died centuries ago. without them, there would be no USA. what would you have now?

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

filtherton

Without King George, there'd be no USA either. So, you know, whatever.

I'm not discounting the historical significance of the founders. I'm pointing out that their opinions are irrelevant because they've been dead for a long time and no one can seem to speak on their behalf without at the same time grinding an ideological axe.

We should do things that make sense now, and we should base our decisions about how to run our country based on things that make sense now. Ideas that were good back then are likely still good. You don't need to quote someone who's been dead for over a hundred years to support the idea that government tyranny is bad. There is no shortage of modern examples of the downsides of government tyranny. Jefferson's opinion on church and state is irrelevant. We know from looking at Iran the problems that can be found by a too-cozy relationship between religion and the state.

Baraka_Guru

I would be uncomfortable living under the tyranny of the dead. It would be odd for Canadians to suggest thinking about what the Fathers of Confederation intended for the country, or even Pierre Trudeau with regard to the Constitution of Canada. We should probably leave that to Canadian constitutional law instead of speculation.

I'm pretty sure they wrote these documents so that we wouldn't have to speculate that way.

---------- Post added at 01:22 PM ---------- Previous post was at 01:19 PM ----------

Where is it written as law that cruel and unusual punishment is just? Does America have such laws (besides the death penalty)?

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot

The_Jazz

Why are the Founding Fathers on such a high pedestal for some? They stole/borrowed their ideas from the European philosphers of the generation before. It's not like they're the font of original thought, although I guess they're the font of implimented thought. And it's not like they weren't wrong about stuff {*cough*threefifthsofaperson*cough}.

__________________
"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety." - B. Franklin
"There ought to be limits to freedom." - George W. Bush
"We have met the enemy and he is us." - Pogo

Baraka_Guru

I think Thomas Paine is an exception. He had some pretty damn good counterarguments to the British philosophical heavyweight Edmund Burke.

__________________
Knowing that death is certain and that the time of death is uncertain, what's the most important thing?
—Bhikkhuni Pema Chödrön

Humankind cannot bear very much reality.
—From "Burnt Norton," Four Quartets (1936), T. S. Eliot