58 Dead, 500 Plus Wounded

[nikolai_42]

Not if you understand that however you put it, you don't have the right to abrogate the rights of anyone else in your exercise.

What (generally) governs the nullification (or diminishment) or rights when it becomes a choice as to whose rights are paramount? In other words, when going one way impedes the rights of one party while going the other impedes the rights of the other, what is the governing principle?

Just an attempt by a bystander, but shouldn't that which tends to diminish (overall) rights the least be the guiding principle? Thus, in gun control, giving someone technology they can't comprehend (and thus, handle safely or appropriately) should override the right of anyone to own a rocket launcher (except maybe for a handful of weapons specialists). Protecting one's person, property and family should be the proportion to which one's right to weaponry be untouched. I don't need a nuke to protect my family - and I am bound to cause unnecessary destruction to people not threatening my property or family - so there is no reason to legalize the manufacture, possession or distribution of nuclear weapons by private citizens. It belongs only the hands of the military.

As a thought experiment, it is conceivable that if I am overrun by attackers (and, for example, I own a large property) I will need to be able to defend myself, my property and my family against an enslaught. So in that instance, semi-automatic weaponry seems reasonable. Well-noted land mines on my ranch may even be reasonable if in an area where there is a lot of violent crime (and I can't police the whole thing all at the same time). A stretch, maybe, but in general terms it would limit damage to the immediate vicinity and not harm those who aren't on the property (assume illegally). Land mines - in that instance - do not threaten anyone but an intruder on my property (or someone on the property legally who ignores posted warnings). So the intended use of the device can reasonably limit damage to the area of interest (my property).

Which brings up my thought that abuse of something shouldn't govern its regulation of legitimate use (or something like that). The whole point of freedom is that it is a privilege and can't be legislated into existence. One can only set a fence around it and say that those who venture outside it do so at their own risk. American freedom depends on one's own adherence to the rule of law established over 225 years ago. So one can't limit access to something simply on the concern that someone may abuse it. Otherwise we shouldn't license people to drive cars anymore. They can be just as effectively mishandled as weapons. Those lines on the asphalt prevent nothing. Only recognizing and adhering to them does.

Sorry...I think I took off in a few directions there....

 

[Town Heretic]

From us who do not have the authority ourselves to make, purchase, and use them?

Right. An army needs all sorts of things to perform the job we give it. A police force requires tools that would be irresponsible to put in the hands of the general public. We have created particular groups to do particular jobs for us.

How is that logical?

How isn't it? We create a police force, require rigorous training and a battery of tests to demonstrate sufficient proficiency by those who would staff the ranks. There are tools that we release to them that further their ability to do the task we give them. Tools that would be dangerous in the hands of people without that training and which are unnecessary for anyone who isn't meeting the obligations of their particular job.

Democracy (and it's cousin, Republic) says it gets its authority, it's rights, from the people, but if the people themselves don't have the right to do something, how can they grant someone else that same authority?

Because we have the right and ability collectively to alter what is permissible individually.

You see, Authority flows DOWNhill, not uphill. It comes from GOD, to the Government, and THEN to the People, who have authority over their families, and even the kid can kick the cat off the couch. That's how authority works.

In our system we elect representatives to step from our ranks and perform certain functions, subject to recall by us. So the power remains with us, the function of it is delegated to individuals and agencies that ultimately answer to us.

Anyways, my point is this: If you don't have the authority to do something, you cannot grant that authority to someone else.

Rather, we possess the authority to decide what is and isn't permissible and in what circumstances. So we can restrict to the military what is necessary and productive for a military but destructive for the general population and needlessly so.

The government I advocate is a constitutional monarchy.

Well of course you do. :chuckle:

 

[ok doser]

Yes.

Blowing up a building is not inherently wrong (if you have permission from the one who owns the building).

Blowing up a building with people inside it, however, is. And if you have permission from the owner to blow it up with people inside, that makes them complicit in the crime.

and criminals should be punished, harshly and quickly


personal rights and personal responsibility - what a concept!


instead we have the nanny staters who fret over "think of the children" and keep this man (who should have been executed the day after he was caught) kept warm and comfortable and fed at the taxpayers expense:

 

[JudgeRightly]

What (generally) governs the nullification (or diminishment) or rights when it becomes a choice as to whose rights are paramount? In other words, when going one way impedes the rights of one party while going the other impedes the rights of the other, what is the governing principle?

Just an attempt by a bystander, but shouldn't that which tends to diminish (overall) rights the least be the guiding principle? Thus, in gun control, giving someone technology they can't comprehend (and thus, handle safely or appropriately) should override the right of anyone to own a rocket launcher (except maybe for a handful of weapons specialists). Protecting one's person, property and family should be the proportion to which one's right to weaponry be untouched. I don't need a nuke to protect my family - and I am bound to cause unnecessary destruction to people not threatening my property or family - so there is no reason to legalize the manufacture, possession or distribution of nuclear weapons by private citizens. It belongs only the hands of the military.

As a thought experiment, it is conceivable that if I am overrun by attackers (and, for example, I own a large property) I will need to be able to defend myself, my property and my family against an enslaught. So in that instance, semi-automatic weaponry seems reasonable. Well-noted land mines on my ranch may even be reasonable if in an area where there is a lot of violent crime (and I can't police the whole thing all at the same time). A stretch, maybe, but in general terms it would limit damage to the immediate vicinity and not harm those who aren't on the property (assume illegally). Land mines - in that instance - do not threaten anyone but an intruder on my property (or someone on the property legally who ignores posted warnings). So the intended use of the device can reasonably limit damage to the area of interest (my property).

Which brings up my thought that abuse of something shouldn't govern its regulation of legitimate use (or something like that). The whole point of freedom is that it is a privilege and can't be legislated into existence. One can only set a fence around it and say that those who venture outside it do so at their own risk. American freedom depends on one's own adherence to the rule of law established over 225 years ago. So one can't limit access to something simply on the concern that someone may abuse it. Otherwise we shouldn't license people to drive cars anymore. They can be just as effectively mishandled as weapons. Those lines on the asphalt prevent nothing. Only recognizing and adhering to them does.

Sorry...I think I took off in a few directions there....

Which gets back to what I was saying on the other thread.

Because someone might abuse the accelerator in their car is not a valid reason to limit speed.

Posting recommended speed limits for turns, intersections and exits is fine though, because it's based on physical laws.

If a highway that is built well can handle speeds up to 100mph, why limit the usage of it to 55?

Last I checked, physical laws take precedence over what some lawmaker says...

 

[ok doser]

American freedom depends on one's own adherence to the rule of law established over 225 years ago. So one can't limit access to something simply on the concern that someone may abuse it.

which is exactly what laws that enforce limitations on gun ownership do - they force compliance on those who will voluntarily adhere to the rule of law and leave them vulnerable to those who won't

 

[ok doser]

Which gets back to what I was saying on the other thread.

Because someone might abuse the accelerator in their car is not a valid reason to limit speed.

Posting recommended speed limits for turns, intersections and exits is fine though, because it's based on physical laws.

If a highway that is built well can handle speeds up to 100mph, why limit the usage of it to 55?

Last I checked, physical laws take precedence over what some lawmaker says...

it's always intrigued me that lawmakers turn a blind eye to the production and marketing of vehicles that are designed to exceed the national speed limit by a factor of three

 

[JudgeRightly]

it's always intrigued me that lawmakers turn a blind eye to the production and marketing of vehicles that are designed to exceed the national speed limit by a factor of three

Try by a factor of four, maybe five...

This baby (Bugatti Chiron) is supposedly capable of 361 mph (288 km/h) (fastest car in the world (it's predecessor, the Veyron, could do 254 mph (408.84 km/h))), but is electronically limited to 261 mph (420 km/h) for safety reasons (there aren't any road tires being made that can handle that sort of speed).

 

[ok doser]

not a fan of speed, myself - had my fill of it when i was young and dumb and rode a bike and drove dangerous cars

still like the kind of acceleration that pushes you back in the seat though

 

[JudgeRightly]

not a fan of speed, myself - had my fill of it when i was young and dumb and rode a bike and drove dangerous cars

still like the kind of acceleration that pushes you back in the seat though

Tesla makes a car that does that haha

 

[ok doser]

Tesla makes a car that does that haha

i'm looking forward to the tesla becoming successful enough to lower the price and make available used parts

i'd love to adapt the tech into boats, in an affordable way - a 70 pound motor that makes over 350 horsepower? :banana:


as for cars, I wouldn't mind having my own model 3 if they can get it down around 30 grand

 

[ok doser]

but to get back to the dichotomy between a government regulating speed on the public highways (way below their designed speed) and knowingly licensing vehicles designed to exceed that speed and then reaping the benefit from tickets and fines and building a police force around the enforcement of traffic laws - something dishonest there

 

[nikolai_42]

which is exactly what laws that enforce limitations on gun ownership do - they force compliance on those who will voluntarily adhere to the rule of law and leave them vulnerable to those who won't

I would argue that legislating harsher gun restrictions primarily because some criminal (who doesn't care about what he's told he can and can't do) is on a par with opening it wide up so that almost anything goes so that you have a chance to defend yourself against your potential assailant. You don't need a howitzer to protect your suburban dwelling - and it is more likely to damage those across the street when you use it. So whatever validity your fear of being invaded by a criminal might be, it has to be overrided by the fact that you put in danger the lives of half a block just to protect your own 5-member family. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. But at the same time, limiting you to a knife (or baseball bat) simply puts you at the mercy of more criminals. So I say you should have as many legitimate guns as you want. As much ammo as you think necessary to protect yourself. And I would say "legitimate" is probably a looser term than is now accepted but not being totally permissive.

 

[nikolai_42]

Which gets back to what I was saying on the other thread.

Because someone might abuse the accelerator in their car is not a valid reason to limit speed.

Posting recommended speed limits for turns, intersections and exits is fine though, because it's based on physical laws.

If a highway that is built well can handle speeds up to 100mph, why limit the usage of it to 55?

Last I checked, physical laws take precedence over what some lawmaker says...

I largely agree...but would say that what's missing today is a healthy respect for the brake.

 

[Arthur Brain]

Which gets back to what I was saying on the other thread.

Because someone might abuse the accelerator in their car is not a valid reason to limit speed.

Posting recommended speed limits for turns, intersections and exits is fine though, because it's based on physical laws.

If a highway that is built well can handle speeds up to 100mph, why limit the usage of it to 55?

Last I checked, physical laws take precedence over what some lawmaker says...

So are speed restriction laws for urban areas. The slower the impact the greater likelihood of survival for anyone hit in a populated area hence why they were lowered - based on physical laws. The greater the speed the slower the reaction time - the same. Not as arbitrary as you seem to think. Safer roads for pedestrians and motorist alike?

Obviously.

Besides which, if you're that desperate to drive fast and if you've got the money to buy sports cars then why not join a sports club or pay to drive on a racing circuit. You can do that over here for places that are designed for speed...

 

[Town Heretic]

What (generally) governs the nullification (or diminishment) or rights when it becomes a choice as to whose rights are paramount? In other words, when going one way impedes the rights of one party while going the other impedes the rights of the other, what is the governing principle?

I think the effort is to make every man equal in the exercise of right. So it's not a question of whose rights are paramount, but what is the nature and effect of the exercise.

Just an attempt by a bystander, but shouldn't that which tends to diminish (overall) rights the least be the guiding principle?

That presumes an equality of value among rights and exercise that I think is hard to argue for. Take the right to bear arms. The right to bear arms has lost a great deal of the value it had in founding and a problem associated with the right at that time is exponentially worse in present circumstances.

When the right was written into our Constitution the weapons people maintained were incapable of producing the sort of harm they are now, did not represent the threat to neighbor and peace that they do now. When the right was established people used those weapons for livelihood and self-defense, and their possession was necessary for a citizens army absent a standing one. Most of what made the right desirable is no longer true and the danger posed by those weapons, absent significant limits, is overwhelmingly greater.

I'm not for abandoning the right because of its diminished utility and greatly advancing danger, but I think the reasonable limits on its exercise, the cost/benefit analysis that made the right meaningful to begin with has to be reexamined. And we can possess (and I've argued for) weapons that were and remain capable of providing security without providing the means for mass shootings/murders.

I don't need a nuke to protect my family

You also don't need an assault rifle, a bump stock, or a magazine that holds 30 rounds.

As a thought experiment, it is conceivable that if I am overrun by attackers (and, for example, I own a large property) I will need to be able to defend myself, my property and my family against an enslaught. So in that instance, semi-automatic weaponry seems reasonable.

Here's the problem, conceivable and reasonable are often at very different poles. Aliens may well exist and it is conceivable that you might meet one. But it's not reasonable to expect it and it may well be irresponsible for you to prepare a special compound for the chance of that happening.

It is conceivable that you might lose your mind and take whatever weapons you can put your hands on to kill as many people as you can. Is it more or less likely, on average, that you will either through malice or mistake harm others with a semi-automatic than it is you will be overrun by a ranging horde of criminals? I think we both know the answer to that.

Which brings up my thought that abuse of something shouldn't govern its regulation of legitimate use (or something like that).

The weapons considered sufficient to support the right when it was written are far less lethal than the bolt, lever, and cylinder fed weapons I advocate today, though they share one thing in common beyond being able to meet the right and need, neither could be used to kill large numbers of innocent people in seconds.

The whole point of freedom is that it is a privilege and can't be legislated into existence.

Freedom is like a weapon. If used intelligently and with the good in mind it can be a wonderful thing. If used without regard for anyone else it becomes monstrous.

One can only set a fence around it and say that those who venture outside it do so at their own risk. American freedom depends on one's own adherence to the rule of law established over 225 years ago. So one can't limit access to something simply on the concern that someone may abuse it.

No one should suggest it. But you can limit access to a thing whose utility is suspect except as an instrument to do a thing no one should desire outside of a military application.

Otherwise we shouldn't license people to drive cars anymore.

We have to have cars at present. We may not always have to have self-driven cars, but the nature of our country, its size and the way populations break down outside of cities necessitate them.

They can be just as effectively mishandled as weapons.

When a car is used to kill someone it is not being used in accord with the purpose for which it was designed.

Sorry...I think I took off in a few directions there....

Enjoyed it. :cheers:

 

[ok doser]

I would argue that legislating harsher gun restrictions primarily because some criminal (who doesn't care about what he's told he can and can't do) is on a par with opening it wide up so that almost anything goes so that you have a chance to defend yourself against your potential assailant. You don't need a howitzer to protect your suburban dwelling - and it is more likely to damage those across the street when you use it. So whatever validity your fear of being invaded by a criminal might be, it has to be overrided by the fact that you put in danger the lives of half a block just to protect your own 5-member family. That doesn't sound reasonable to me. But at the same time, limiting you to a knife (or baseball bat) simply puts you at the mercy of more criminals. So I say you should have as many legitimate guns as you want. As much ammo as you think necessary to protect yourself. And I would say "legitimate" is probably a looser term than is now accepted but not being totally permissive.

the second amendment wasn't written to ensure a well organized militia to defend against criminals breaking into your home

it was written to ensure a well organized militia to resist a tyrannical state

if that ever comes to pass, i'd prefer a howitzer over a shotgun

 

[ok doser]

So are speed restriction laws for urban areas. The slower the impact the greater likelihood of survival for anyone hit in a populated area hence why they were lowered - based on physical laws.

then surely you would support lowering the speed limit in urban areas to 10 mph?

or 5?

 

[JudgeRightly]

then surely you would support lowering the speed limit in urban areas to 10 mph?

or 5?

Why not 1? 1mph is probably not enough to cause physical damage to most objects, so in the interest of safety, let's just limit it to 1mph!

:mock:

Oh, and don't mind the fact that no one would get anywhere in their vehicles quickly and safely.

 

[ok doser]

...
Besides which, if you're that desperate to drive fast...

worth mentioning here that artie is from england, where you can travel the whole country in a day


here in America, the difference between eight hours at a 55 mph speed limit and traveling at, let's say 85 is 240 miles - in other words an extra 4 hours and change on the road at the slower speed.

New York to LA? 51 hours vs 33

 

[Arthur Brain]

Why not 1? 1mph is probably not enough to cause physical damage to most objects, so in the interest of safety, let's just limit it to 1mph!

:mock:

Oh, and don't mind the fact that no one would get anywhere in their vehicles quickly and safely.

Because it takes the needs of the motorist and public safety into account. The difference between 20 and 30mph may not sound like very much but it's significant in terms of the damage inflicted on someone being struck by a car, especially in relation to children, not to mention the increase in reaction time which would improve the chances of people not being hit at all.