[tomder55]

They have buy backs all the time.. The gangbangers get cash for obsolete weapons they can't use anymore . Then they get new illegal guns... Amazing... switch the words guns and drugs and the narrative changes. We get told making drugs illegal won't stop anyone from using them. But evidenly prohibition will work with guns.

[Tuttyd]

Hello again,

As we've discussed in the past, I'm an adherent to the belief that an ARMED society, is a POLITE society. What I DON'T know, is whether an ARMED society, is a SAFE society.

I'm beginning to think it's NOT.

excon

Hi Ex,

An armed society is polite because it is a nervous society. Nervous people are not always safe to be around.



Tut

P.S. If you are wondering why I have changed by user name it is because I closed by old e mail account in favour of a different account, I assumed that I would have to re register using my new account. If I am wrong I am sure somebody will point this out.

[Tuttyd]

the 'shouting fire 'example is a metaphor that was used by Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the 1919 Schenck v. United States decision. He was wrong in his ruling regardless of the metaphor . (what a suprise ...a bad SCOTUS decision!) It was in support of the Wilson 1918 Sedition Act. Holmes said that the act was permissible because protests against WWI were a clear and present danger to the government recruiting effort . The metaphor also only applies to a false shout of fire. If there really is a fire ;it's probably a good idea to shout it out.

Tom, is is an example of hindsight bias, or "I know it all along" It is easy to apply this type of bias after the event. This is why you have such a long list of "What a surprise...a bad SCOTUS decision"

As you know we cannot have absolute freedom against the state. By the same token this does not means that the state has absolute authority over us. Rights in this view are those which can be infringed with a majority consent - when the public is under threat.


Tut

[odinn7]

Funny that we're back to talking about buybacks being the solution. I pointed this out several pages ago how they don't work and then it was dropped. Now it comes back as the solution all over again.

People turn in junk. They turn in hunting rifles. They turn in relics. They turn in everything except for those guns that get used in crimes... those very guns that you seem to be so afraid of.

[tomder55]

Why is it 20/20 hindsight calling an unconstitutional decision by SCOTUS a bad call ? Laws against sedition have always been constitutional violations . The fact that the court unanimously made such a bad call makes it all the more disturbing... and that was just one of many calls that SCOTUS has horribly blown. I can only cite the more infamous ones ;and I can cite quite a few . Too much power has been vested in such a small body of unelected oligarchs.

[Tuttyd]

why is it 20/20 hindsight calling an unconstitutional decision by SCOTUS a bad call ? Laws against sedition have always been constitutional violations . The fact that the court unanimously made such a bad call makes it all the more disturbing...and that was just one of many calls that SCOTUS has horribly blown. I can only cite the more infamous ones ;and I can cite quite a few . Too much power has been vested in such a small body of unelected oligarchs.

I guess the short answer is because you were not there at the time.

Having googled the case I agree that it was a bad decision, but I wasn't there in during a World War. The important point is that it was seen as a right decision for the time. If those judges were alive today and they viewed a similar case they would probably come up with the opposite decision.

However, during that time and give the progress of history up until that point they decided that there were exceptional circumstances that required a freeze on this type of free speech in the interests of the majority.

Of course this type of decision wouldn't wash today. There are no ideal observers in this world that can extract themselves from their historical context and make a decision. Can you extract yourself from your history?

In the future, people will say, "Bad decision, I knew it all along."

That is why it is called creeping determinism.

Tut

[paraclete]

Funny that we're back to talking about buybacks being the solution. I pointed this out several pages ago how they don't work and then it was dropped. Now it comes back as the solution all over again.

People turn in junk. They turn in hunting rifles. They turn in relics. They turn in everything except for those guns that get used in crimes....those very guns that you seem to be so afraid of.

Sooner or later they won't have junk to trade in then they will cut to the chase, once you are over the fiscal cliff a buy back might be very attractive

[Tuttyd]

and again I get to debate how many angels can fit on the head of a pin. Ok the founders ;even the ones like Jefferson (who still believed in the concept of "nature's god",were men who lived before Darwin. It would've never occured to them to separate natural law from a creator .

And where is God in the Constitution ? It is in the Ratification Clause (Article VII)
done in Convention by the Unanimous Consent of the States present the Seventeenth Day of September in the Year of our Lord one thousand seven hundred and Eighty seven and of the Independence of the United States of America the Twelfth In witness whereof We have hereunto subscribed our Names, [/I]

The LORD referred to is not the King of England. The phrase "in the year of our Lord" in the Constitution replaced"in the year of our reign" use by kings in royal decrees.

Also ,in the Preamble the phrase "secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity" was nothing less than linking the governing document with the document of principles that is the Declaration of Independence.

A lot of issues here. Perhaps we can deal with them one at the time. The first one has got me intrigued.

Jefferson being the learned man he was would have been very familiar with Locke's Treatises of Government. So yes he would have had a very good knowledge of the theory of natural laws. Being a Deist he may very well have been prepared to argue that natural laws are bound up with the idea of a Creator, but he would have been equally aware that it is an entirely different proposition to claim that natural laws are a product of a Christian God.

I am not sure where Darwin comes into the picture. You don't need to understand Darwin to understand Deism and Locke.


Tut

[tomder55]

but he would have been equally aware that it is an entirely different proposition to claim that natural laws are a product of a Christian God.

Yes ,but of course my premise has not been that the founding was based on a Christian God .Instead ,the text of the Declaration is specific about 'Nature's God ' .

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

[Tuttyd]

yes ,but of course my premise has not been that the founding was based on a Christian God .Instead ,the text of the Declaration is specific about 'Nature's God ' .

From my point of view that would be reasonable assumption when it comes to the Declaration.

The difficulty comes about when we try to say that the Constitution is 'the product' of a Christian God. I guess 'the product' here largely depends on how much you want to read into the example you posted... 'in the year of our Lord'

You would need to clarify this for me. I am assuming you are NOT saying that the Constitution is a theistic document. If it were in terms of a product of a Christian God then it would be a non-naturalistic explanation for rights. On this basis free speech would be an absolute right in exactly the same way as the decisions of Congress would be absolute.

Deism on the other hand can( with a bit of work) can accommodate natural rights being the product of a Creator. Sure, if you wanted to point out a link between the Declaration and the Constitution in terms of Deism I think you can structure a reasonable argument in that direction.But I think you are going to run into trouble when you try and link the idea of natural rights with Deism and the idea of natural rights with a Constitution that is the product of a Christian God.

But again, it depends on how far you want to push the Christian influence into the Constitution. I'm not sure how far you would be prepared to push in this direction.

Tut

[cdad]

Tom, is is an example of hindsight bias, or "I know it all along" It is easy to apply this type of bias after the event. This is why you have such a long list of "What a surprise...a bad SCOTUS decision"

As you know we cannot have absolute freedom against the state. By the same token this does not means that the state has absolute authority over us. Rights in this view are those which can be infringed with a majority consent - when the public is under threat.


Tut

I believe to receive email notifications you just need to change your "contact" information in your user profile. That is where your email is stored for notices.

[tomder55]

And again I get to debate the angels on the head of a pin. You asked where the references to God are in the Constitution ;and I gave them . The ratification clause was one ;and the preamble was the other. It is in the preamble where there is a link the liberties defined as unalienable God(natures God) given rights.
Now can we get off this tangent please. My very simple assertion is that if we have rights to life ,liberty and property ;we also have a right to defend them . That was clearly understood by the founders,
The peaceable part of mankind will be continually overrun by the vile and abandoned while they neglect the means of self-defence. (Thomas Paine)

[odinn7]

This is really just going around in circles now. Nitpicking the Constitution and what the founding fathers meant and how they may view things now... it's all just a bunch of crap that I've heard before. And now... that just keeps being beaten over and over. This thread has run its course.