I think it's a great idea. The left always starts of negotiations with something like "We want ten trillion dollars in new taxes" and the republicans always start of with a realistic "we want tax rates to remain as they are now" and the compromise is always new taxes. We need to start our negotiations as far out there as they do in order for the result to be anywhere near what we really want.
I could see that, kind of like Robert A. Heinlein's covenant approach in the stories Methuselah's Children, If This Goes On--, and Coventry with elements of Starship Trooper's, the book, (the movie gets a little of the superficial stuff right, and completely misses all of the elements that make Starship Troopers as relevant today as it was when the Grandmaster wrote it).
So by declaring that your sovereignty will be exercised in service of the society as a whole, you are willing to make certain sacrifices, (like vaccinations which may or may not be dangerous, I haven't studied this at all, other to note controversy exists, I have no opinion) and in return society recognizes your right to be armed, when ever where ever. I'll have to think about it more. I will note that I am leery about using the government in attempting to do good, social planning is fine in theory but the success stories are buried under an avalanche of disaster, reversed outcomes, and much of the time the simple wasting of resources, of spending a lot with little to show.
Or did I misread your point all together?
Exactly. I started at the very edge of my personal comfort zone, and then pushed farther. Interesting the things you can find out about your self with this kind of exercise, especially if you can recognize when your response is pure emotion, and you have to start digging to find out why you have that reaction.
"Mandatory" as in students are required to take the classes against the will of the students and the parents?
Who funds the program?
Who funds the program?
What are the strings attached to these government-issue weapons?
Who funds it? Is it by limiting sales per individual? Subsidizing the ammunition industry?
Who takes on the extra liability?
Why should current generations pay for the transgressions of past generations? Social justice and equality?
I take it you don't mind state-controlled media.
Why?
----
I see a lot of infringement on other rights solely to regulate the promotion of the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
I see a lot of "mandatory" BS. Theres no FREEDOM in mandatory. Theres no RIGHTS in mandatory.
Lastly you are making the GOV bigger and more intrusive. None of these MANDATORY ideas will work, ever. As anything that is MANDATORY aint right, so please do not sit down and NEGOTIATE on my behalf with these MANDATORY ideas.
My idea of negotiating with anti's is listening to their concerns, debateing with them, and try to find a workable solution. Then putting that solution into legislation, if needed, and allow our Fed. Reps debate it and if needed, vote it into law. If the law passes, get the Supreme Court to reveiw it and see if it passes Constitutional muster.
See, we have a system already in place to do this, so what we need to do is let the system do what was intended. None of this MANDATORY stuff needs to be shoved down anyones throat, democracy can work without being radical.
And all laws and rights needs to be reviewed or modified periodically, and thats ok too.
Lastly you are making the GOV bigger and more intrusive. None of these MANDATORY ideas will work, ever. As anything that is MANDATORY aint right, so please do not sit down and NEGOTIATE on my behalf with these MANDATORY ideas.
My idea of negotiating with anti's is listening to their concerns, debateing with them, and try to find a workable solution. Then putting that solution into legislation, if needed, and allow our Fed. Reps debate it and if needed, vote it into law. If the law passes, get the Supreme Court to reveiw it and see if it passes Constitutional muster.
See, we have a system already in place to do this, so what we need to do is let the system do what was intended. None of this MANDATORY stuff needs to be shoved down anyones throat, democracy can work without being radical.
And all laws and rights needs to be reviewed or modified periodically, and thats ok too.
Last time I checked, NOT shoving crap down the throats of other citizens was considered "radical".
Thanks for the feedback=)
Ok first off I wish to say that I will from time to time indulge in sarcasm to make a point, when doing so, 'I'm not trying to be mean, just memorable'=)
2nd My social interaction skills are rusty, but I do not mean to be offensive, if you are offended by something please don't hesitate to point it out, and why it is an offence would be helpful. But by the same token, I don't have any respect for the idea that the accusation is the all that matters when judging if a position or idea 'is' offensive.
@Veggie Meat
1 yes
2 taxpayers
3 taxpayers
4 none other than deal is good for one time only
5 taxpayers
6 dismissed by government fiat,
7 a) political ju jitsu against PC and b) get the traditional minorities up to speed so they have as much to lose as the rest of us,
8 and 9 I do actually, but until the full restoration of the Constitution I would like to use the mechanisms already in place for good instead of evil.
10 to point out absurdity of Fed's in FDA, EPA, HHS, Dept of Agriculture, etc etc etc who do not need to carry on the job, since they don't make arrests. Yet they are carrying guns for self-protection under the guise of state authority,when the States position is that guns don't provide protection. Also to combat the nascent two class society of the Armed Statist owning the Disarmed Serf.
@Lurker66
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. I think I may have a vocabulary problem. From my perspective freedom is only possible when there are rules in place that restrain not just the public, but also restrain the government. I don't see how this increases the size of government from where it is now, can you give me an example?
And I agree that negotiations, when properly conducted, include listening to the concerns of the other side to try to find a workable solution.
I must respectfully disagree that debate is a part of negotiation. If a problem could be resolved by debate then negotiation wouldn't be necessary. My understanding is that debate is the art for coming to a correct conclusion, by looking at the evidence, and then having conversations with each other until the best idea wins.
Negotiations on the other hand, are what happens when an issue is not amendable to debate. When you have people with such opposing viewpoints that the only way to keep the peace is by sitting down and hammering out a solution that both sides can live with, by making demands and giving concessions.
And I am 100 percent behind the idea of the peoples will, as passed through the legislature and reviewed by the Supreme Court before becoming the law is the source of a laws legitimacy.
But again I must respectably disagree that we gun-people are working outside the system. In point of fact, I think the laws on the books today are the result of pro-gun Americans working within the system. We have turned away from the model that using violence against a criminal attack, is only appropriate when carried out by the 'trained' state actor, and are returning to the model that proposes a violent response is most effective when in the hands of the intended victim.
When I was a kid listening to the adults discuss life, the idea of carrying a gun for self protection was thought to be to dangerous to be feasible. Endangered not just from the criminals, but also by Agents of the State. The adults thought that for self-defence a gun was the proper tool, they were just afraid of the government arresting them if they had to use it. Sadly, their fear was justified. People who defended themselves from assault, who used a gun to discourage a rapist or a murderer, were hauled into court and prosecuted for their actions. The media called these defenders unbalanced or vigilantes or other less flattering terms. Oddly, under this model crime, especially violent crime increased.
Americans started pushing back against the idea that we couldn't be trusted, and through the political process, by activism, by funding pro gun organizations, by supporting pro-gun policies and politicians we have put rules in place that say, it is ok to protect yourself from crime, to protect your family and neighbours from violent assault, from kidnapping, rape, or robbery.
We are where we are, here today because of our political system.
BUT, the people who think we can't be trusted, that we need to be 'educated' into living the life they plan out for us and punished when we deviate from their direction.
Who dream of the day when no one lives without the instruction of the state when everything that is not compulsory is forbidden.
ARE
STILL
HERE
They are the ones who want to circumvent the system.
They want to pass laws not by the will of the people, but because they know what's best. They do not want to debate, they are either afraid of the truth, or so arrogant they think the truth is identical to whatever they think the truth to be.
Pretend with me for a moment if you will, that the anti's start believing the solution for all that ails our society, indeed the problems that wound the world, is easily resolved if we could just remove everyone's {well almost everyone's}* legs....
Finding that some citizens object, they offer to have a conversation with us about the issue. They want to work out a solution that everyone can live with. They want to help us see the truth, and ask when will we be ready to negotiate and decide whether we should chop off our right leg before chopping off the left, or do we think chopping off the left leg first will be better.
I was surprised to find that, on an emotional level, I truly don't care. If the destruction of the footwear industry is the price we pay to stop spree killers from hosing down a school, I maybe could get used to a wheel chair.
Except it won't.
That inconvenient fact,
that constant demonstrable truth,
that all of the gun ban nonsense conversation is worthless in stopping this type of crime.
Indeed worthless in stopping crime in general and violent crime in particular.
That we have already tried their solutions, and after we watched those solutions fail over a number of years, we came up with some new ideas that actually work.
I think first of all, we need to state right at the front that we see through their supposed willingness to negotiate whether by starting at our feet and working their way up or starting at our waist and working down.
That we will not allow it.
That ALL amputation is off the table.
That their offer of the 'already tried', 'already failed' shows their contempt for the political process, and their contempt for us.
That we understand they would rather we be killed by state authority, than see us live by personal autonomy.
That we believe history shows that they won't stop pursuing their nonsense even if it comes to chopping through our necks.
That we will not quietly submit to the bone saw.
That we like our limbs and head in the places they are now thank you.
That if they continue to proclaim that amputation is all that's needed,
if they continue to use the media to drown out our just concerns.
We will have no choice but to leave the negotiations and the normal political process and seek other ways of political reform.
Dang this turned out to be longer than I expected
I still have another point, but I'll put it in a separate post hopefully tomorrow
*historically the promoters of these types of solutions never see themselves as participants. In this case a we find that a number of state actors must endure the shame of the 4 limbed, a sacrifice they willingly embrace as they work in service to the truncated public.
Ok first off I wish to say that I will from time to time indulge in sarcasm to make a point, when doing so, 'I'm not trying to be mean, just memorable'=)
2nd My social interaction skills are rusty, but I do not mean to be offensive, if you are offended by something please don't hesitate to point it out, and why it is an offence would be helpful. But by the same token, I don't have any respect for the idea that the accusation is the all that matters when judging if a position or idea 'is' offensive.
@Veggie Meat
1 yes
2 taxpayers
3 taxpayers
4 none other than deal is good for one time only
5 taxpayers
6 dismissed by government fiat,
7 a) political ju jitsu against PC and b) get the traditional minorities up to speed so they have as much to lose as the rest of us,
8 and 9 I do actually, but until the full restoration of the Constitution I would like to use the mechanisms already in place for good instead of evil.
10 to point out absurdity of Fed's in FDA, EPA, HHS, Dept of Agriculture, etc etc etc who do not need to carry on the job, since they don't make arrests. Yet they are carrying guns for self-protection under the guise of state authority,when the States position is that guns don't provide protection. Also to combat the nascent two class society of the Armed Statist owning the Disarmed Serf.
@Lurker66
I'm sorry but I don't understand what you mean. I think I may have a vocabulary problem. From my perspective freedom is only possible when there are rules in place that restrain not just the public, but also restrain the government. I don't see how this increases the size of government from where it is now, can you give me an example?
And I agree that negotiations, when properly conducted, include listening to the concerns of the other side to try to find a workable solution.
I must respectfully disagree that debate is a part of negotiation. If a problem could be resolved by debate then negotiation wouldn't be necessary. My understanding is that debate is the art for coming to a correct conclusion, by looking at the evidence, and then having conversations with each other until the best idea wins.
Negotiations on the other hand, are what happens when an issue is not amendable to debate. When you have people with such opposing viewpoints that the only way to keep the peace is by sitting down and hammering out a solution that both sides can live with, by making demands and giving concessions.
And I am 100 percent behind the idea of the peoples will, as passed through the legislature and reviewed by the Supreme Court before becoming the law is the source of a laws legitimacy.
But again I must respectably disagree that we gun-people are working outside the system. In point of fact, I think the laws on the books today are the result of pro-gun Americans working within the system. We have turned away from the model that using violence against a criminal attack, is only appropriate when carried out by the 'trained' state actor, and are returning to the model that proposes a violent response is most effective when in the hands of the intended victim.
When I was a kid listening to the adults discuss life, the idea of carrying a gun for self protection was thought to be to dangerous to be feasible. Endangered not just from the criminals, but also by Agents of the State. The adults thought that for self-defence a gun was the proper tool, they were just afraid of the government arresting them if they had to use it. Sadly, their fear was justified. People who defended themselves from assault, who used a gun to discourage a rapist or a murderer, were hauled into court and prosecuted for their actions. The media called these defenders unbalanced or vigilantes or other less flattering terms. Oddly, under this model crime, especially violent crime increased.
Americans started pushing back against the idea that we couldn't be trusted, and through the political process, by activism, by funding pro gun organizations, by supporting pro-gun policies and politicians we have put rules in place that say, it is ok to protect yourself from crime, to protect your family and neighbours from violent assault, from kidnapping, rape, or robbery.
We are where we are, here today because of our political system.
BUT, the people who think we can't be trusted, that we need to be 'educated' into living the life they plan out for us and punished when we deviate from their direction.
Who dream of the day when no one lives without the instruction of the state when everything that is not compulsory is forbidden.
ARE
STILL
HERE
They are the ones who want to circumvent the system.
They want to pass laws not by the will of the people, but because they know what's best. They do not want to debate, they are either afraid of the truth, or so arrogant they think the truth is identical to whatever they think the truth to be.
Pretend with me for a moment if you will, that the anti's start believing the solution for all that ails our society, indeed the problems that wound the world, is easily resolved if we could just remove everyone's {well almost everyone's}* legs....
Finding that some citizens object, they offer to have a conversation with us about the issue. They want to work out a solution that everyone can live with. They want to help us see the truth, and ask when will we be ready to negotiate and decide whether we should chop off our right leg before chopping off the left, or do we think chopping off the left leg first will be better.
I was surprised to find that, on an emotional level, I truly don't care. If the destruction of the footwear industry is the price we pay to stop spree killers from hosing down a school, I maybe could get used to a wheel chair.
Except it won't.
That inconvenient fact,
that constant demonstrable truth,
that all of the gun ban nonsense conversation is worthless in stopping this type of crime.
Indeed worthless in stopping crime in general and violent crime in particular.
That we have already tried their solutions, and after we watched those solutions fail over a number of years, we came up with some new ideas that actually work.
I think first of all, we need to state right at the front that we see through their supposed willingness to negotiate whether by starting at our feet and working their way up or starting at our waist and working down.
That we will not allow it.
That ALL amputation is off the table.
That their offer of the 'already tried', 'already failed' shows their contempt for the political process, and their contempt for us.
That we understand they would rather we be killed by state authority, than see us live by personal autonomy.
That we believe history shows that they won't stop pursuing their nonsense even if it comes to chopping through our necks.
That we will not quietly submit to the bone saw.
That we like our limbs and head in the places they are now thank you.
That if they continue to proclaim that amputation is all that's needed,
if they continue to use the media to drown out our just concerns.
We will have no choice but to leave the negotiations and the normal political process and seek other ways of political reform.
Dang this turned out to be longer than I expected
I still have another point, but I'll put it in a separate post hopefully tomorrow
*historically the promoters of these types of solutions never see themselves as participants. In this case a we find that a number of state actors must endure the shame of the 4 limbed, a sacrifice they willingly embrace as they work in service to the truncated public.
1, 2, 3, 4, 5 - so Socialism with a dash of 2A flavor. Nice. At least it falls inline with the NRA's flavor of Statism. But hey, as long as it's "good" for guns, it must be good.
6 - WTF is that supposed to even mean?
7 - So non-minorities are superior to minorities in your mind?
8, 9 - Evil can't possibly be used for good.
10 - See 6.
Are some of you getting worked up over nothing? The antis fight using Alinsky's Rules For Radicals (essentially). Our side tries to be reasonable. That's a losing position from the start. You either refuse to negotiate, or make similarly ridiculous counter demands. Any less is a net loss.
I consider feinstein's demands to be batshit crazy. Why should she get to have all the fun?
FWIW, I think a mandate to offer a program in grade school that mimics the Eddie Eagle program to be logical and rational. If the school wanted to offer an "opt out" to parents, I'd have no problem with that.
I consider feinstein's demands to be batshit crazy. Why should she get to have all the fun?
FWIW, I think a mandate to offer a program in grade school that mimics the Eddie Eagle program to be logical and rational. If the school wanted to offer an "opt out" to parents, I'd have no problem with that.
Murph, i can only answer a couple of your points in your response.
By making things mandatory and how it relates to freedom. We have a right to vote, to bear arms ect. That doesnt mean one MUST excersize a right, but we are FREE to, if we choose. Making things MANDATORY kinda nullifies rights, thus freedom is diminished.
As for debates, yes, they are part of the process. Usually it works like this. Me n you sit down, i propose something, we debate the pros n cons, we present our arguments against the pro n cons, if we are still at odds and cant reach a compromise, we take what we have, present it to congress, let them debate on the floor, then it gets voted on.
Anyway im really only interested in what could gun owners could concede without loseing the right to bear arms. For me personally, i think we ought to try to make it easier to adjudicate people with diagnosed mental issues.
Also i think its pointless to ask a gun buyer if they are addicted to drugs. If a drug addict can lie, they can buy. Do we want addicts to buy guns? I mean being an illegal drug addict is like being a felon except they havent been caught. So if a person commits felonious acts but hasnt got caught, and can tell a lie on a form for a generic background check, are we OK with that?
I dunno what the solutions are but it needs to be discussed, argued and debated.
By making things mandatory and how it relates to freedom. We have a right to vote, to bear arms ect. That doesnt mean one MUST excersize a right, but we are FREE to, if we choose. Making things MANDATORY kinda nullifies rights, thus freedom is diminished.
As for debates, yes, they are part of the process. Usually it works like this. Me n you sit down, i propose something, we debate the pros n cons, we present our arguments against the pro n cons, if we are still at odds and cant reach a compromise, we take what we have, present it to congress, let them debate on the floor, then it gets voted on.
Anyway im really only interested in what could gun owners could concede without loseing the right to bear arms. For me personally, i think we ought to try to make it easier to adjudicate people with diagnosed mental issues.
Also i think its pointless to ask a gun buyer if they are addicted to drugs. If a drug addict can lie, they can buy. Do we want addicts to buy guns? I mean being an illegal drug addict is like being a felon except they havent been caught. So if a person commits felonious acts but hasnt got caught, and can tell a lie on a form for a generic background check, are we OK with that?
I dunno what the solutions are but it needs to be discussed, argued and debated.
Similar threads
