Canada bans 1500 kinds of military style weapons.

[eider]

The Preamble makes an implication:

We the people of the United States, in order to form a more perfect union, establish justice, insure domestic tranquility, provide for the common defense, promote the general welfare, and secure the blessings of liberty to ourselves and our posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America.

Also, when ratified, the date was mentioned as: "In the year of our Lord 1787." Jesus is our only Lord, here in the United States. The Declaration of Independence mentions God four times, one of which I think of most often is where it says that we are endowed by our Creator with certain inalienable rights, among which are: life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness. Nor only were these men smart enough to think of the good things which should be guaranteed to all men but they were also smart enough to realize where these rights came from to begin with.

I'm not debasing anything, but we own guns to protect us from all enemies, both foreign and domestic. That was in my oath, as it is in every public office in this country.

No........ Nothing there.
Until recently much of the World used 'BC or 'AD' for dates.......... No mention of God in your Constitution.

 

[eider]

When a government becomes too tyrannical to a point where it's un-bearable, people revolt. Venezuela is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes away the rights of the people, the last of which is usually gun ownership.

Rubbish........... Venezuela has a Dictator in Maduro.
You've got an electorate.

If you go killing the servicemen and women of an elected government then your are a terrorist.

 

[eider]

It was to both but I wanted to be careful use the right words for you all on the other side of the pond. Your word "government" isn't as encompassing as ours. The Constitution here establishes the entire regime, including our courts, and I know that your "government" is separate from your courts.
There's an important distinction between an unfettered democracy, and a liberal democracy. Liberal regimes are limited by the individual basic human rights of its people /civilians /public. Liberal regimes have as a duty to defend these rights. What you're suggesting, that a majority can validly vote to censor any of our rights, or to deny them completely, is not liberal. It is anarchic, or anarchy (though perhaps somewhat organized anarchy) adjacent. Any democracy that permits, authorizes, allows, condones, the violation of inviolable rights is broken and needs fixing, and it is headed down the road to abject failure as a regime.
He especially didn't like clause 61.
So you're telling us that governments sometimes don't obey the rules that they have ostensively agreed to.
Murder is killing without justification. The Americans were justified, not murderers.

Hi again............ I read all of that.
But your Constitution does get changed, by Amendments, and sometimes your right have been reduced by these.
Which amendment banned alcoholic drinks for a decade?
I'm not saying that was a good policy but it was the US policy and it got policed.
You can't overlook the possibility that an Amendment might change what guns you can use.
an
Many many countries have decided top reduce what guns can be owned and used by civilians and that includes the US, by the way.

But for now Canada, New Zealand, many European countries, Taiwan and other countries don't weant civilians to have fast-fire guns. In the UK pistols are banned apart from black powder revolvers etc.

It's just our individual decisions, is all.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Rubbish........... Venezuela has a Dictator in Maduro.
You've got an electorate.

If you go killing the servicemen and women of an elected government then your are a terrorist.

It's almost funny when people in the West make comparisons with dictatorships as if their rights and liberties are being denied in anything like such a fashion.

Actually, it isn't. It's just plain dumb.

 

[eider]

It's almost funny when people in the West make comparisons with dictatorships as if their rights and liberties are being denied in anything like such a fashion.

Actually, it isn't. It's just plain dumb.

It's truly amazing....... mind spinning.

Anybody who thinks, 'Yuh... need my AR-15 for killing my countrymen and women if'n I get mad' and still thinks they are reasonable folks, these are just the ones to identify.

 

[chair]

The basic thing here is a balance between individual rights and the public good. Neither one of those is absolute- one needs to find a balance between them.

 

[eider]

The basic thing here is a balance between individual rights and the public good. Neither one of those is absolute- one needs to find a balance between them.

True.
Back in the 60s I spent every possible minute out on the foreshore marshes, a wildfowler. In 1968 the government gave all foreshore shooting rights to the landowners whose property reached the foreshore, and so free ground for wildfowlers was wiped out forever.
That was a huge loss of freedom, but we bit the bullet and obeyed the law.
But I have benefitted from other laws ....... It's all about the people's choice in a democratic country.
Any idea of going out with guns to kill gamekeepers and bailiffs would have been pure terrorism.

 

[Idolater]

Hi again............ I read all of that.
But your Constitution does get changed, by Amendments, and sometimes your right have been reduced by these.
Which amendment banned alcoholic drinks for a decade?
I'm not saying that was a good policy but it was the US policy and it got policed.
You can't overlook the possibility that an Amendment might change what guns you can use.
an
Many many countries have decided top reduce what guns can be owned and used by civilians and that includes the US, by the way.

But for now Canada, New Zealand, many European countries, Taiwan and other countries don't weant civilians to have fast-fire guns. In the UK pistols are banned apart from black powder revolvers etc.

It's just our individual decisions, is all.

Is democracy our political ideology, or is it something else, like, perhaps, liberalism? Because democracy has no inherent protection against censoring individual basic human rights. If any majority wants to censor your rights in a strictly democratic regime, then they can do it, no matter the character or nature of that censorship, and no matter who or what group of people it targets.

Constitutionalism is neither liberal or democratic or republican or monarchical, necessarily, your constitution can be whatever you want it to be, but in America, especially in its original form, it was basically liberal. And among our founders were a lot of racists, and their racist policies were not, we now know, liberal at all, they censored many of the rights of black poc.

So even in America there is a long history of legislation that conflicts with liberalism, and if we take our Constitution to be an expression of liberalism, then any illiberal laws or policies are Unconstitutional in a fundamental way. Our Supreme Court has even been guilty of rulings throughout the centuries that are illiberal.

And if liberalism is the political theory in the US, then any censorship of our basic human rights is not only Unconstitutional and illegal, but also wrong and immoral, because liberalism is not only a political theory but a moral philosophy. And this is why we are justified in defending our rights and our political theory against all its enemies, foreign and domestic. We are morally obligated to.

 

[Idolater]

The basic thing here is a balance between individual rights and the public good. Neither one of those is absolute- one needs to find a balance between them.

Liberalism believes that recognizing, affirming, protecting, defending, preserving, acknowledging individual rights IS the public good. There is no conflict between these two things, according to liberalism. The suggestion that there is a conflict, is utilitarian. Utilitarianism is in conflict with liberalism.

 

[eider]

Is democracy our political ideology, or is it something else, like, perhaps, liberalism? Because democracy has no inherent protection against censoring individual basic human rights. If any majority wants to censor your rights in a strictly democratic regime, then they can do it, no matter the character or nature of that censorship, and no matter who or what group of people it targets.

Constitutionalism is neither liberal or democratic or republican or monarchical, necessarily, your constitution can be whatever you want it to be, but in America, especially in its original form, it was basically liberal. And among our founders were a lot of racists, and their racist policies were not, we now know, liberal at all, they censored many of the rights of black poc.

So even in America there is a long history of legislation that conflicts with liberalism, and if we take our Constitution to be an expression of liberalism, then any illiberal laws or policies are Unconstitutional in a fundamental way. Our Supreme Court has even been guilty of rulings throughout the centuries that are illiberal.

And if liberalism is the political theory in the US, then any censorship of our basic human rights is not only Unconstitutional and illegal, but also wrong and immoral, because liberalism is not only a political theory but a moral philosophy. And this is why we are justified in defending our rights and our political theory against all its enemies, foreign and domestic. We are morally obligated to.

Thank you for the time you spent on that post.
Question: Therefore, would I be correct in saying that you are a 'Liberal'?

I really do like freedom, but I would support the wishes of a majority first.

In the UK freedoms do get taken away, sometimes from the poor, sometimes from the rich, a typical example of the wealthy landowners losing freedom is the banning of fox hunting, a most ancient culture. An example of poor loss of freedom was the withdrawal of the ancient right to hunt wildfowl anywhere below the tideline in 1968.

Here in the UK the people's vote guides the government's decisions and I'll stick with that. I've never been to the States but it looks like you might be going that way too.

Government for the people, by the people, kind of thing.

 

[Idolater]

Thank you for the time you spent on that post.
Question: Therefore, would I be correct in saying that you are a 'Liberal'?

I really do like freedom, but I would support the wishes of a majority first.

In the UK freedoms do get taken away, sometimes from the poor, sometimes from the rich, a typical example of the wealthy landowners losing freedom is the banning of fox hunting, a most ancient culture. An example of poor loss of freedom was the withdrawal of the ancient right to hunt wildfowl anywhere below the tideline in 1968.

Here in the UK the people's vote guides the government's decisions and I'll stick with that. I've never been to the States but it looks like you might be going that way too.

Government for the people, by the people, kind of thing.

I am liberal, 100%. And "government of the people, for the people, by the people" is a quote from our President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Lincoln was also liberal, and he hearkened back to our founding document the Declaration of Independence, a work of political theory, where we find the words "all men are created equal", which is another liberal slogan. It's been called in shorthand "democracy" but that is because the "liberal" part was assumed. For a long time democracy and liberalism meant the same thing (liberal democracy), even though history's first democratic regimes were not particularly liberal.

And "freedom" during that same period also meant liberalism, where what's meant is not anarchy or moral nihilism, but the freedom to exercise our rights so long as we don't censor anybody else's rights without justification.

 

[Arthur Brain]

It's truly amazing....... mind spinning.

Anybody who thinks, 'Yuh... need my AR-15 for killing my countrymen and women if'n I get mad' and still thinks they are reasonable folks, these are just the ones to identify.

It's also tragic.

 

[eider]

I am liberal, 100%. And "government of the people, for the people, by the people" is a quote from our President Lincoln's Gettysburg Address, and Lincoln was also liberal, and he hearkened back to our founding document the Declaration of Independence, a work of political theory, where we find the words "all men are created equal", which is another liberal slogan. It's been called in shorthand "democracy" but that is because the "liberal" part was assumed. For a long time democracy and liberalism meant the same thing (liberal democracy), even though history's first democratic regimes were not particularly liberal.

And "freedom" during that same period also meant liberalism, where what's meant is not anarchy or moral nihilism, but the freedom to exercise our rights so long as we don't censor anybody else's rights without justification.

Oh..... if I had lived in a World where I could have been Free to have and do whatever I wanted, and to be Free to choose whatever I had wanted. But now I'm thinking a little more about that idea, and a word is rising up in my mind which spells disaster......... the word is 'Spoiled'. I've had the opportunity to get to know spoiled people and the characteristics that I have always identified in them were constant unhappiness and total discontentment.

I read your "government of the people, for the people, by the people" and I see something that I support, but I don't see that is Liberalism, because if a majority of the people think that something should or should not happen, then their wish should be so. You see, if 'the majority' makes a mistake then 'the majority' can rethink, undo and turn around about.

Where I live individuals and groups of people who do not agree with legislation or policies, they can demonstrate publicly, they can publish their opinions freely, they can picket premises (within bounds), they can promote their ideas for the people to hear and see. This is democracy. But they cannot hurt, threaten, commit crimes, harm, break, kill or murder....... that would be very wrong.

After two particularly dreadful mass murders the peoples' governments of those times passed laws, the first to ban fast-fire guns with large magazines, the second to ban (nearly) every pistol in the land.

Personally I don't view these decisions as a smashing up of people's freedoms so much as a protection for people in general. Nobody here is allowed to do what they like for work unless they can do it safely and securely and we have ways of trying to ensure that....... it's not denying freedoms, it's protecting all people.

What can say? I don't think that total Liberalism would work, but freedom within democratic rules is not bad.

 

[ok doser]

When a government becomes too tyrannical to a point where it's un-bearable, people revolt. Venezuela is a perfect example of what happens when the government takes away the rights of the people, the last of which is usually gun ownership.

Idolater
ffreeloader

What eider and artie don't realize, can't realize is that this country was born in a Civil War, which pitted neighbor against neighbor and which suffered through a second Civil War which pitted neighbor against neighbor.

The 2nd Amendment was a direct result of that first Civil War and directly benefited the prosecution of that second Civil War. If we must have a third Civil War to re-secure the rights that have been so steadily eroded by representatives of an electorate that values them so little that they will agree to throw them away for the false illusion of security, so be it.

 

[eider]

......... individual rights IS the public good.....................

I'm back.........
I need to ask you much more.
Individual rights......... can you write some of these down for me? Obviously I don't need to see rights that a believer in People's Democracy would support because there must be many points where s liberal and a believer in people's democracy would agree.
What other Individual rights does a Liberal believe in or want?

 

[eider]

It's also tragic.

Ah, Arthur.... the World is full of tragedy.
Churchill got a lot wrong in his early-middle years, but Churchill got it right, dead right, when he offered the advice 'Jaw Jaw, not War War'.... or something similar.
All we can do here is offer to 'talk'.

How are the films going?
Are you a film buff? I get this picture of you being keen on earliest cinema classics like Metropolis...... or did you have a dream such as being the Beeb's Film Guru?...... that bloke is very good, you would be out of luck there!

 

[eider]

What eider and artie don't realize, can't realize is that this country was born in a Civil War,...........

Arthur Brain ..... had to copy the above for you to see.
And freaks like this must think that we never had a Civil War.
And much earlier than that our country came to be in war after war after war............

He still doesn't get it that good people don't need guns for killing their own police, sheriffs, militia and service wo/men. Militia were formed to keep people like HIM in place.

I need a drink..... cheers! :cheers:

 

[ok doser]

.. He still doesn't get it that good people don't need guns for killing their own ....

except in those two instances I cited, the one that started in 1775 and the one that started in 1861

and the next one that will, inevitably, come

I'd rather be prepared to fight

You apparently would rather be prepared to baaaaa

 

[Arthur Brain]

Ah, Arthur.... the World is full of tragedy.
Churchill got a lot wrong in his early-middle years, but Churchill got it right, dead right, when he offered the advice 'Jaw Jaw, not War War'.... or something similar.
All we can do here is offer to 'talk'.

How are the films going?
Are you a film buff? I get this picture of you being keen on earliest cinema classics like Metropolis...... or did you have a dream such as being the Beeb's Film Guru?...... that bloke is very good, you would be out of luck there!

I most certainly am and like a wide range, from modern independent cinema through to blockbusters and early classics. Do you mean Mark Kermode? He's brilliant, not only does he know his stuff inside out, he's entertaining as anything to listen to as well with a keen sense of humour.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Arthur Brain ..... had to copy the above for you to see.
And freaks like this must think that we never had a Civil War.
And much earlier than that our country came to be in war after war after war............

He still doesn't get it that good people don't need guns for killing their own police, sheriffs, militia and service wo/men. Militia were formed to keep people like HIM in place.

I need a drink..... cheers! :cheers:

The kind of thing I'd expect...

I need one too!

:cheers: