Mental Illness, Politics, and Guns

[little2add]

7 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

"Thou shall not bear false witness against thy neighbor"

mass murder's are sick in the mind, there actions are witness

 

[little2add]

[GreenScapularedHuman]

@little2add

[little2add]

@GreenScapularedHuman

 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

17 minutes ago, little2add said:

@GreenScapularedHuman

 

So making available contraception, abortifacients, and abortion is killing babies... and should be banned. But simply more regulating firearms that are made available to kill people (and children) is outrageous.

I think you missed the point that there is an inherent fallaciousness and hypocrisy in there. And if you are not going to be intellectually honest and resort this to accusing me of being pro-abortion... Then there is no reason to continue this.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

The point of guns being legal in the u.s I was told is in case a dictator rose to power the people could rise up and take back there freedom. Is this true? 

When were guns made legal? In the last 100yrs? Smells like warlock magic, and there planning on a civil war sometime in the future. I heard one of your Freemason presidents said that the last president of the u.s.a would be black and after that civil war would break out. I really hope, wish and pray it doesn't and I dont understand much about the world but for the sake of your nation let's not go there.

Calm down, be humble. Jesus and mama mary got this dudes, trust and believe.

[GreenScapularedHuman]

48 minutes ago, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye said:

The point of guns being legal in the u.s I was told is in case a dictator rose to power the people could rise up and take back there. Is this true? 

The American right to bear arms has a history in their British heritage. British common law granted subjects the right to not be unreasonably be disarmed by Parliament or the Crown. However later legislation was aimed at disarming Scotland and also Catholics within their realm, which if it was entirely effective is somewhat debatable, but it did take a lot of arms. So by the time the American authors of the bill if rights sat down the idea of the federal government disarming the States or the population was fresh in their minds and they saw these attempts to disarm British subjects for religious reasons as grossly illegal (but tolerated because the British common law just wasn't that very protective). So they imagined a more explicit right not to be unreasonably disarmed but too it a step further declaring it as a right in general because they felt that the right to not be unreasonably disarmed was not sufficient for a government that was actively trying to find ways around that... for example the British attempted to restrict the materials needed to make firearms and their ammunition to the American colonies which wasn't a disarming thus in the eyes of the British legal custom permissible. The purposes of this right was always imagined as self-defense of nation, community, or self.

The American population and political establishment by the time of the American revolution was very weary and suspicious of standing armies that had no immediate purpose, for this reason many States required that standing armies require the consent of the State legislature, and the federal constitution provided what its authors felt did just that in Article I Section VIII in one of the enumerated powers of Congress "To raise and support Armies, but no Appropriation of Money to that Use shall be for a longer Term than two Year". Which is why there is every year or two in modern America a required revisit if Congress wants to fund the military, now typically called the "Defense Authorization Act" which is unusually non-partisan and considered very high priority to passing (though in recent decades riders/earmarks have increased in these acts).

So the American revolutionaries imagined a government that had limited military powers, the citizenry would be chiefly responsible for its defense, and a federal government that couldn't disarm them. The second amendment was not intended to grant an individual right to firearms because the right at first only applied to the federal government and was not until the fourteenth amendment and subsequent incorporation in about 2010 that the federal Supreme Court guaranteed it as an individual right. But if the American revolutionaries saw the right to bear arms as more an individual or collective right is very debatable. Though they certainly put a lot of limitations and regulations on firearms for their time limiting them to able, white, male, twenty-one year olds who were of sufficient standing (meaning no poor, women, youngsters, non-northerneuropean whites, and to some extent non-protestants) even putting restrictions on storage, reporting who had a firearm, required training for persons with firearm (in the view of a citizens militia), restricting concealed carry, and restricting firearms out of urban areas. Meaning in just about every measurable way the American 21st century right to bear arms is quite expanded, more robust, more comprehensive, and more entrenched than what 18th century America.

The authors of such a right in the 18th century certainly imagined that a well armed population would be a deterrent to tyranny but deterrent is all it was since the right doesn't grant any right to actually use a firearm and the constitution explicitly prohibits rebellion and insurrection. The Whiskey rebellion in the very fledgling days of the new American union was just that, an act of rebellion against what they felt was a tyrannical tax policy, which they were put down. Which became a common theme through American history that the government (be it federal or state) had absolutely no respect, toleration, or patience to armed insurrection or rebellion no matter how lofty or justifiable its rationale was. So while a deterrent it is as much a deterrent as a scarecrow... moreover because in armed conflict organization and tactics are supreme over ragtag non-organized fighters. This reality is even more true since the 19th century's innovation of machine guns and especially so in the 20th century with the innovation of modern military technology. (As a fun note the Catholic Church traditionally abhorred the innovation of a machine gun and called it immoral, because it could kill so indiscriminately, in fact I've heard it argued on this notion that war in the modern world under a traditional just war evaluation may not be permissible at all).

So TLDR, did the right to bear arms intend allow citizens to fight for their liberty against the government, not really but it is certainly a 'de facto' reality of arming a population that they cold if they chose to use those firearms against the government even if not a 'de jure' right and is highly illegal. But the authors of such rights did imagine the right as a deterrent and prevention of tyranny. But more specifically they imagined the right to bear arms as a means of limited but common and individual defense.

Edited March 19, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[GreenScapularedHuman]

Please excuse my typos. I would correct them But I cannot because of limitations/restrictions on edits.

[little2add]

9 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

I think you missed the point

the 2nd amendment is a necessary evil, needed in order to defend myself against unstable looney bins who decide to try to kill innocent people for no apparent reason, where as abortion is killing defenseless babies in the womb.    

Edited March 19, 2018 by little2add

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

the 2nd amendment is a necessary evil, needed in order to defend myself against unstable looney bins who decide to try to kill innocent people for no apparent reason, where as abortion is killing defenseless babies in the womb.    

The point you are grossly missing is that pro-unrestricted-firearm-right advocates like to pretend that regulation will have no beneficial affect at all... which is a little bit strange because they think that regulation of other things like contraception, abortion, lgbtq-matters, and I could go on DOES have a beneficial affect to the end they want.

It is sort of like a case of Christian Scientists who don't believe in modern medicine being accused of child neglect which resulted in the death of their child, their child has a common and well-treatable condition, they argued their religious liberty entitled and protected them to believe that prayer was sufficient. But the really glaring contradiction and hypocrisy in their argument is that both of them wore glasses. Basically saying 'medical science can't do anything, we should just pray, unless its for us then its really great'.

And it is largely a myth that a 'good guy with a gun' and stop a 'bad guy with a gun'... I mean even well trained police have difficulty stopping shooters even when they are coming in with a lot better equipment and backup. Might as well in this logic 'pray the shooter away'.

Edited March 19, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[little2add]

22 minutes ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

it is largely a myth

 

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

Yeah, guns in lockers at home waiting for a possible invader or dictator, 21+ to get liscence, fire arm training a requirement and psychological evaluation to get one. The question is how many guns should people be allowed and to what calibre. And what should the jail time be for someone caught with there personal gun out of there locker, oh I guess you would have to at least be allowed to own 2 and have one in a locker at the firing range. <shrugs> idk 

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

 

Thomas Paine was a prolific writer, but I do not know where such a statement came from, and I doubt you would of liked Thomas Paine at all... For example he was an atheist and a staunch anti-theist. For example he pinned "It has been the scheme of the Christian church, and of all the other invented systems of religion, to hold man in ignorance of the Creator, as it is of Government to hold man in ignorance of his rights. The systems of the one are as false as those of the other, and are calculated for mutual support. The study of theology, as it stands in Christian churches, is the study of nothing; it is founded on nothing; it rests on no principles; it proceeds by no authorities; it has no data; it can demonstrate nothing; and it admits of no conclusion. Not any thing can be studied as a science, without our being in possession of the principles upon which it is founded; and as this is not the case with Christian theology, it is therefore the study of nothing." http://www.ushistory.org/paine/reason/reason37.htm

But despite that tidbit about Thomas Paine, even if he did write it (which I suspect he didn't, because he was quite liberal, even for his time... supporting a universal basic income to all citizens in Agrarian Justice) he in this case is just wrong. Most of the most democratic, free, and open nations on Earth today have very low firearm ownership... The United States having the highest in fact as of late 2016 was downgraded on the World Democracy Index to 'flawed democracy'. So what did guns do to stop that?

Edited March 19, 2018 by GreenScapularedHuman

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

If only for a foreign invader or dictator then the people need the right to several grenades in there locker at home too, a few stun grenades, a few smoke grenades and several explosive grenades to stand a fighting chance. <shrugs> idk . I like how you said since the invention of automatic weapons that wars are no longer just, same as bombs to right? Crack shot warfare is far more sporting I guess and skillful. I'm actually leaning towards absolute no violence, and thou shalt not kill means just that, thou shalt not kill and Jesus said "put away your sword peter, violence begats violence." What do I care if I get martyred and go to heaven and the violent oppressors are left here to rot till judgement day? That's how Rome was defeated right? The blood of the pacifists.

[little2add]

6 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

The United States having the highest in fact as of late 2016 was downgraded on the World Democracy Index to 'flawed democracy'. So what did guns do to stop that?

personally, I have no use for guns, never have.  

Thanks to: armed law abiding citizens, armed guards, police, personal bodyguards, even military/armed services who all play a role in self defense, using guns.    the problem is not Guns. the problem is a Godless society.

I hope and pray that I will never need to use lethal force to protect my; life,  property and family but I do feel better knowing that if the need arose that I could, legaly!

Edited March 19, 2018 by little2add

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, little2add said:

personally, I have no use for guns, never have.  

Thanks to: armed law abiding citizens, armed guards, police, personal bodyguards, even military/armed services who all play a role in self defense, using guns.    the problem is not Guns. the problem is a Godless society.

I hope and pray that I will never need to use lethal force to protect my; life,  property and family but I do feel better knowing that if the need arose that I could, legaly!

When we look at nations on level of religiosity (the importance and frequency of religion, despite personally held beliefs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country more religious nations tend to fair worse on virtually all socioeconomic outcomes. Violence and crime in said nations are also higher. There just simply isn't evidence that religion (at least in of itself) or even adherence to has any affect on these sorts of outcomes. While this doesn't necessarily mean that religion is utterly invalid or harmful... just that the idea that more religion  in of itself makes for a better society or nation is bunk.

[little2add]

1 hour ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Violence and crime in said nations are also higher. There just simply isn't evidence that religion (at least in of itself) or even adherence to has any affect on these sorts of outcomes.

Really? Do tell!

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

On 20/03/2018 at 10:22 AM, GreenScapularedHuman said:

When we look at nations on level of religiosity (the importance and frequency of religion, despite personally held beliefs) https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Importance_of_religion_by_country more religious nations tend to fair worse on virtually all socioeconomic outcomes. Violence and crime in said nations are also higher. There just simply isn't evidence that religion (at least in of itself) or even adherence to has any affect on these sorts of outcomes. While this doesn't necessarily mean that religion is utterly invalid or harmful... just that the idea that more religion  in of itself makes for a better society or nation is bunk.

What about Switzerland and Finland?

[GreenScapularedHuman]

1 hour ago, Tab'le De'Bah-Rye said:

What about Switzerland and Finland?

As of the 2008-2009 Gallup survey Finland (9/149 | 28% important to 70% unimportant) and Switzerland (26/149 |  41% important to 57% unimportant) were both notably lower than the United States (44/149 | 69% important to 31% unimportant) in considering religion important. Both Finland and Switzerland have a majority of their population considering religion unimportant while the United States has a supermajority who consider it important. So if this is any indication America is about two to three times more religious than Switzerland and Finland. So Finland and Switzerland could be argued to be more godless than America, yet they have neither theses very serious challenges that America does (among others), Switzerland in fact has a very high amount of firearm ownership but due to very major regulation they experience only a fraction of what America does in regards to criminality or violence related to firearms.

[Tab'le De'Bah-Rye]

3 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

As of the 2008-2009 Gallup survey Finland (9/149 | 28% important to 70% unimportant) and Switzerland (26/149 |  41% important to 57% unimportant) were both notably lower than the United States (44/149 | 69% important to 31% unimportant) in considering religion important. Both Finland and Switzerland have a majority of their population considering religion unimportant while the United States has a supermajority who consider it important. So if this is any indication America is about two to three times more religious than Switzerland and Finland. So Finland and Switzerland could be argued to be more godless than America, yet they have neither theses very serious challenges that America does (among others), Switzerland in fact has a very high amount of firearm ownership but due to very major regulation they experience only a fraction of what America does in regards to criminality or violence related to firearms.

Dude are you serious. Stats aren't that great an indicator and can be manipulated to be bias to an agenda by only surveying the suburbs that fit your agenda. unless the majority of the population over 18 is part of the survey to me its worth diddley squat. How many people where surveyed in your stats dude?

3 hours ago, GreenScapularedHuman said:

Actually I see the amount of people. 149 people. That's crazy that you would rebuke my rebuke with a measly 149 people buh. Lol. Your smarter then that I can tell. What's your game here buddy? No pun intended and all are welcome unless they are trolling or treating, foul language, etc

 

That treating was meant to say bullying, I hate auto correct sometimes