Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Debate opinion topics of original content.

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby spacemonkey » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:17 am

Gun free zone = soft targets. Its like a "kick me" sign to the bad guy's.
The hardest part of doing nothing is knowing when your done.
spacemonkey
Governor
 
Posts: 4830
Joined: Mon Aug 27, 2012 10:54 am
Location: cyberspace
Gender: None specified
Has thanked: 64 times
Been thanked: 268 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:23 am

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:As you've hinted at, the reason they are presented as natural rights is because framing the issue as such makes people far less likely to question the validity of the very assumptions that underline that philosophy. If people understood that rights were simply the result of government policy, that they can be modified, removed or altered at will, and that they do not exist outside a government capable of defending them, a simply huge chunk of the pro-gun argument has been demolished from the start.

Afterall, the pro-gun position is predicated on the idea that you have a right to a gun. Remove that assumption, and the entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of gun nuts talking about why their hobby is worth tens of thousanss of murders a year, a militarized police force, thousands of accidental deaths, etc. The rest of the arguments that back it - the US is culturally unique, defense against tyranny and so on - are also nonsense.

Without tricking people into believing bullshit, the pro-gun movement would lose all the time. Alas...


I think you need to go back and spend some more time learning about the US system of government.

We have a constitution. That constitution lays out the explicit powers of the government. The areas of the individual (rights) were protected by not giving government power over those areas. At some point this became rather fuzzy, so an explicit list of rights were added to the constitution.

1.) The nature of rights has no bearing on this at all. Rights are enforced because the constitution is the contract between the people and the government and it says that certain things may not be done by the government.

2.) The constitution can be changed. There is a whole part of it that lays out exactly how one can go about making changes, including, if one was so inclined and the people so supportive, giving the federal government the explicit power to regulate, ban, or melt down firearms.

So your argument above is junk. People aren't appealing to natural rights, they are appealing to the document that defines and limits our government. Natural rights would only be an argument against amendment, however such an argument is only philosophical in nature as the amendment process provides no restrictions. If the people want it in sufficient quantity, they can make the change. They don't.

I will add here, that even if the people did want it in sufficient quantity, it may be one of those issues that some people will not concede. In that instance, yes, it may become a point of revolution. Though, the 2/3 requirement should avoid this from being a likely scenario.

Whether natural or not, we have a second amendment. It is a rule for the government. It shall not be infringed except by process of constitutional amendment (or a re-write, another process that can be called).


I'll skip over the condescending secondary school civics class bullshit because it misses the point. It is obvious to everyone who thinks about these things that legal rights are the only thing that matters, and natural rights are a bunch of fluff. That is the entire meaning of your civics lesson and I was already aware of the peculiar fact that supposedly natural rights can be changed.

Unfortunately that is not the widescale perception of firearms in the US. People genuinely and truly believe they have a natural right to firearms, that such a right is not established by government, but is self-evident, and that it's removal is both tyrannical and worthy of revolution. In other words, there is a mythology surrounding the US Constitution that supports a natural rights philosophy, even though such a philosophy has been totally discredited and makes no sense (and never has). This mythology is based on the Second Amendment, a legal right presented as a natural right, unique to the US.

This is an issue of perception, which is what we've been talking about the whole time. You have already more or less admitted that the value of that perception is to make people believe these things cannot be changed - how does one change a self-evident, inalienable right?

This is the great deluson of the pro-gun side, laid out. For all the talk about rights, its empty nonsense meant to distract from the terrible policy implications. It's what you and Non sweep under the rug everytime you talk about this shit.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby eynon81 » Wed Jul 29, 2015 11:27 am

exploited wrote:
eynon81 wrote:
exploited wrote:As you've hinted at, the reason they are presented as natural rights is because framing the issue as such makes people far less likely to question the validity of the very assumptions that underline that philosophy. If people understood that rights were simply the result of government policy, that they can be modified, removed or altered at will, and that they do not exist outside a government capable of defending them, a simply huge chunk of the pro-gun argument has been demolished from the start.

Afterall, the pro-gun position is predicated on the idea that you have a right to a gun. Remove that assumption, and the entire movement is nothing more than a bunch of gun nuts talking about why their hobby is worth tens of thousanss of murders a year, a militarized police force, thousands of accidental deaths, etc. The rest of the arguments that back it - the US is culturally unique - are also nonsense.

Without tricking people into believing bullshit, the pro-gun movement would lose all the time. Alas...



it's the right of self-defense.

the practical impact is that armed people are harder to mess with either by domestic or foreign sources.

it's an ancient concept that used to be more of an obligation than a right. much of the rest of the world lost that concept because the oppressive powers that be took it from them (Scotland, Russia, India) or they bask on the protection of Pax Americana....(you're welcome). In the United States we've gone beyond other countries who maintained that tradition (like the Swiss or Fins) because we've commercialized it like everything else we do.


The right to self-defense simply states that every person can defend themselves from violence. It doesn't say anything about how they do it, what weapon they use, who they use it against, etc. It has almost nothing to do with the Second Amendment, and exists in just about every Western country in the world, whether it is presented as a right or merely a long-established precedent. Whereas the Second Amendment is unique (and uniquely stupid).


the bear arms bit just grew out of Western European common law:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Right_to_ ... rms#Europe

hard to defend one's self without the tools.
User avatar
eynon81
VIP
VIP
 
Posts: 19475
Joined: Mon Aug 20, 2012 10:38 am
Location: Golden, Colorado
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 3875 times
Been thanked: 1821 times
Political Leaning: Very Conservative

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:15 pm

exploited wrote:I'll skip over the condescending secondary school civics class bullshit because it misses the point. It is obvious to everyone who thinks about these things that legal rights are the only thing that matters, and natural rights are a bunch of fluff. That is the entire meaning of your civics lesson and I was already aware of the peculiar fact that supposedly natural rights can be changed.


Good, because that's really the only important part here.

exploited wrote:Unfortunately that is not the widescale perception of firearms in the US. People genuinely and truly believe they have a natural right to firearms, that such a right is not established by government, but is self-evident, and that it's removal is both tyrannical and worthy of revolution. In other words, there is a mythology surrounding the US Constitution that supports a natural rights philosophy, even though such a philosophy has been totally discredited and makes no sense (and never has). This mythology is based on the Second Amendment, a legal right presented as a natural right, unique to the US.


See, now you are moving beyond the social contract and delving into trying to enforce thinking patterns. Trust me when I say that people who feel they have a natural right to firearms wouldn't just forget it if they changed their thinking on rights. You are in a sort of chicken vs egg situation. People believe strongly in keeping the right, therefore it is seen as a fundamental right that shall not be removed except by tyrannical government. It isn't the other way around.

Just because you don't see a valid argument past natural rights, doesn't mean there isn't one to have. In fact, our government had this argument at its inception many times. The right to bear arms was a check against tyranny. No natural right is necessary to understand the point of that.

exploited wrote:This is an issue of perception, which is what we've been talking about the whole time. You have already more or less admitted that the value of that perception is to make people believe these things cannot be changed - how does one change a self-evident, inalienable right?


It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to change rights, it is an issue of law. If you are trying to convince gun owners that there is no value in their guns beyond a hobby, it is an issue of futility. You quite simply are wrong on this belief that there is no argument other than natural rights.

As for the implied "trickery", you have it backwards. The concept isn't to trick people, it is to remind government of the importance of certain rights. Government is what encroaches upon liberty. It is a tool, not a trick.

exploited wrote:This is the great deluson of the pro-gun side, laid out. For all the talk about rights, its empty nonsense meant to distract from the terrible policy implications. It's what you and Non sweep under the rug everytime you talk about this shit.


There is no delusion. If you convinced everyone in America tomorrow that there is no such thing as natural rights, you know what would change? Nothing. The constitution is still there, the process to change it is still long and difficult and the people that support gun rights will continue to support gun rights. Natural or man-made. Because the reasons don't change.
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 12:44 pm

Medius wrote:
exploited wrote:I'll skip over the condescending secondary school civics class bullshit because it misses the point. It is obvious to everyone who thinks about these things that legal rights are the only thing that matters, and natural rights are a bunch of fluff. That is the entire meaning of your civics lesson and I was already aware of the peculiar fact that supposedly natural rights can be changed.


Good, because that's really the only important part here.

exploited wrote:Unfortunately that is not the widescale perception of firearms in the US. People genuinely and truly believe they have a natural right to firearms, that such a right is not established by government, but is self-evident, and that it's removal is both tyrannical and worthy of revolution. In other words, there is a mythology surrounding the US Constitution that supports a natural rights philosophy, even though such a philosophy has been totally discredited and makes no sense (and never has). This mythology is based on the Second Amendment, a legal right presented as a natural right, unique to the US.


See, now you are moving beyond the social contract and delving into trying to enforce thinking patterns. Trust me when I say that people who feel they have a natural right to firearms wouldn't just forget it if they changed their thinking on rights. You are in a sort of chicken vs egg situation. People believe strongly in keeping the right, therefore it is seen as a fundamental right that shall not be removed except by tyrannical government. It isn't the other way around.

Just because you don't see a valid argument past natural rights, doesn't mean there isn't one to have. In fact, our government had this argument at its inception many times. The right to bear arms was a check against tyranny. No natural right is necessary to understand the point of that.

exploited wrote:This is an issue of perception, which is what we've been talking about the whole time. You have already more or less admitted that the value of that perception is to make people believe these things cannot be changed - how does one change a self-evident, inalienable right?


It depends on what you are trying to do. If you are trying to change rights, it is an issue of law. If you are trying to convince gun owners that there is no value in their guns beyond a hobby, it is an issue of futility. You quite simply are wrong on this belief that there is no argument other than natural rights.

As for the implied "trickery", you have it backwards. The concept isn't to trick people, it is to remind government of the importance of certain rights. Government is what encroaches upon liberty. It is a tool, not a trick.

exploited wrote:This is the great deluson of the pro-gun side, laid out. For all the talk about rights, its empty nonsense meant to distract from the terrible policy implications. It's what you and Non sweep under the rug everytime you talk about this shit.


There is no delusion. If you convinced everyone in America tomorrow that there is no such thing as natural rights, you know what would change? Nothing. The constitution is still there, the process to change it is still long and difficult and the people that support gun rights will continue to support gun rights. Natural or man-made. Because the reasons don't change.


And now you have once again tried to turn the discussion to be about something it's not, which is pretty much the exact point that sparked this conversation.

This is what happens:

Person A proposes a specific gun law.

Person B asserts that such a law is wrong because of rights, whether legal or natural.

Person A proves that such a right has no logical basis unless one simply asserts it as true, whether through a philosophical statement or a legal document. He/she points out that these rights can be changed given support.

Person B either refuses to accept this or they make an appeal to tradition (this is what you've done above - "Nothing changes etc)).

Person A reiterates proposal.

Person B now tries to counter the specifics of that proposal, usually by arguing that the US has a distinct culture that makes it different, or by adopting a position whereupon being a statistical outlier is no problem because the event itself is fairly rare.

Person A demolished these points by pointing out the statistical rarity of these cultural differences (Mexican gang members compared to Mexicans, gang members vs total population, etc) or by just expressing exasperation at how ignorant and calloused the second point is (number of car trips versus number of accidents is incredibly large, therefore no need for car regulations).

Person B asserts gun ownership is a right yet again, and once again appeals to tradition.

You are literally doing this exact thing right now.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:12 pm

exploited wrote:And now you have once again tried to turn the discussion to be about something it's not, which is pretty much the exact point that sparked this conversation.

This is what happens:

Person A proposes a specific gun law.


You do need to be specific here as we do have gun laws, so generally the proposal is one of either banning guns or taking away the right to bear them without due process of law.

exploited wrote:Person B asserts that such a law is wrong because of rights, whether legal or natural.


Correct, because, US Constitution.

exploited wrote:Person A proves that such a right has no logical basis unless one simply asserts it as true, whether through a philosophical statement or a legal document. He/she points out that these rights can be changed given support.


Wrong. The right has a logical basis. It is in the US Constitution. It can be argued as being important and necessary. What you meant to say is that you've proven that the right is not truly inalienable, which I concede by definition.

exploited wrote:Person B either refuses to accept this or they make an appeal to tradition (this is what you've done above - "Nothing changes etc)).


I'm not sure what you are on about here, we are in a democracy with a constitution. There are rules about how things change. They need to be supported by the people and for constitutional changes, very supported. That's not tradition, that is how our government operates.

exploited wrote:Person A reiterates proposal.


Yes, this happens over and over and over and over. It can get quite annoying.

exploited wrote:Person B now tries to counter the specifics of that proposal, usually by arguing that the US has a distinct culture that makes it different, or by adopting a position whereupon being a statistical outlier is no problem because the event itself is fairly rare.


Not seeing a problem. I would hope that people would question the value of a law before just putting it into place.

exploited wrote:Person A demolished these points by pointing out the statistical rarity of these cultural differences (Mexican gang members compared to Mexicans, gang members vs total population, etc) or by just expressing exasperation at how ignorant and calloused the second point is (number of car trips versus number of accidents is incredibly large, therefore no need for car regulations).


Your vivid imagination kicking in again. I've asked for just these kind of statistics, but the truth is that the stats just don't favor gun control unless you add in a lot of questionable data.

exploited wrote:Person B asserts gun ownership is a right yet again, and once again appeals to tradition.


Read: Constitution and the rule of law that is the foundation of the entire country. Sure. Got it.

exploited wrote:You are literally doing this exact thing right now.


Therefore guns are ... bad... ok? Yeah, I lost you somewhere.

I'm pretty sure what happened was that you said "The gun debate rests only on the idea of natural rights that you guys all believe in."

I responded that I don't actually believe in natural rights as an objective concept, but rather as a tool for framing the key elements of revolution and countered that the gun debate doesn't really rest on the idea of natural rights at all, but the fact that we have a constitution that is the foundation of all governmental power and must be honored or changed through the legal constructs therein provided.

Then something went terribly wrong.
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:17 pm

Actually, Medius, this is what I said:

"It means that your perspective has been warped by propaganda that does not exist elsewhere. In addition, your fundamental understanding of the issue will always be flawed, because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy)."

You have, over the course of this discussion, admitted that everything in that paragraph is true, and yet you insist I'm wrong about it. It's totally nonsensical and EXACTLY what I'm referencing in my statement. You've even gone so far as to follow the exact pattern of debate I've outlined above. Assert something as a right, admit it isn't a right but instead something agreed to by people, assert reasons why people might agree with supporting the historical gun right mythology of the US, be shown those reasons are either irrelevant or outright false, revert back to appeal to authority.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:26 pm

exploited wrote:Actually, Medius, this is what I said:

"It means that your perspective has been warped by propaganda that does not exist elsewhere. In addition, your fundamental understanding of the issue will always be flawed, because the US legal system has a huge and well-developed mythology regarding weapons and rights, which itself is based upon thinking that was discredited almost as soon as it was developed (natural rights philosophy)."

You have, over the course of this discussion, admitted that everything in that paragraph is true, and yet you insist I'm wrong about it. It's totally nonsensical and EXACTLY what I'm referencing in my statement.


I have not admitted everything in that statement is true at all. You really did not pay attention to my posts.

The idea that natural rights are not absolute in the sense that they somehow magically repel tyranny is discredited, but it is an asinine idea that no reasonable human being actually believes. The founding fathers weren't idiots, they were arguing philosophical constructs of thought. The importance of thinking of things as natural rights is not discredited at all and still relevant. As I pointed out in my post.

And in doing so, refuted your assertion that the straw-man concept above is where my belief comes from.

I also very clearly threw out your mythology argument as the right is not a myth but has the absolute highest legal backing that something can possibly have in our system of government. Yes, it can be changed through amendment, but not through legislation. That isn't a myth. That is fact.

You also indicated that somehow the reason for preserving the right to bear arms is only couched in natural rights, which is also false. There are real and pragmatic reasons for the citizenry to keep and bear arms.

But seriously though, if you want to go back and read, it might help explain my position. I think the only thing we agreed upon was really that the philosophical purist definition of natural rights is silly.
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby exploited » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:26 pm

And you're going to do it again here. "But the US Constitution..." But the US Constitution isn't the guiding document of political discussion and referencing it to justify a law is still just a fallacy.

Edit: haha, yup, called it.
User avatar
exploited
Vice President
 
Posts: 20958
Joined: Fri Sep 14, 2012 2:32 pm
Location: Ontario, Canada
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 2197 times
Been thanked: 1702 times

Re: Rick Perry: Guns Should be Allowed in Movie Theaters

Postby Medius » Wed Jul 29, 2015 1:32 pm

exploited wrote:And you're going to do it again here. "But the US Constitution..." But the US Constitution isn't the guiding document of political discussion and referencing it to justify a law is still just a fallacy.

Edit: haha, yup, called it.


I think you aren't being clear about your context then. You are complaining about how people in the US think about rights, but then complaining about me bringing up the document from where we generally look to for those rights...
User avatar
Medius
Governor
 
Posts: 4019
Joined: Sun Aug 19, 2012 9:21 pm
Gender: Male
Has thanked: 123 times
Been thanked: 495 times
Political Leaning: Middle of the Road

PreviousNext

Return to The Soapbox

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

cron