We have very little time left as a democracy- the Patriot Act, open-ended weapon against democracy
POSTED BY: SignyM
UPDATED: Thursday, October 16, 2025 15:16
VIEWED: 18510
PAGE 18 of 21
Quote:Because that’s not the point. Whether I think some restrictions should be applied is immaterial. I’m not the one claiming that curtailing implied Constitutional rights will lead to the end of our democracy. So the question is, what do you think of gun control? Do you think we should restrict what is obviously an explicit Constitutional right in favor of the safety of the public from the threat of automatic weapons (or conceivable other arms), and if so, how do you reconcile that with your insistence that our democracy will end if we curtail implied Constitutional rights in favor of the safety of the public from terrorism to include the use of explosives, chemical, biological and nuclear threats, all of which are possibilities?
Originally posted by SignyM:
Actually, it's not off the mark. You obviously understand that SOME restrictions must be placed on who can own what types of arms. That puts you in the same category as liberals. The only thing that you disagree on in where the line should be drawn. So instead of railing aginst "them", why don't YOU tell US- who can own what kidns of weapons?
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Well gosh, exsqueeze me if I took your words at face value. How could I have been so foolish as to think you actually meant what you wrote?
However, the Second Amendment to the Constitution says that the right of the People to have and bear arms shall not be infringed. It doesn’t say that the right of the People to have and bear non-automatic guns shall not be infringed. It does not specify the type of weapon. So not only does the Constitution not prevent a person from keeping and bearing automatic weapons, it doesn’t even prevent the People from keeping and bearing artillery or missiles etc, all of which fall under the category of arms. Yet, you will find hundreds of laws curtailing our Constitutional right to keep and bear arms, just on non-automatic guns alone, to say nothing of more powerful arms, most of which are strictly forbidden.
NOTIFY: N | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:Face value, huh? If by “Face value” you mean, doesn’t remotely resemble, then perhaps. If you can justify to yourself this kind of imaginative conclusion, does it even matter what I write? You didn't take what I said at face value, you distorted it.
Originally posted by rue:
Well gosh, exsqueeze me if I took your words at face value. How could I have been so foolish as to think you actually meant what you wrote?
Anyway, I'm tired. I'm going to stick a fork in it and call it a night.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Whaaa....??? OH MAN, I'm going to need a double espresso just to figure this one out! OK, maybe if I look at this piece by piece....
Quote:Hmmm... that means that anything you say on the topic of gun control is immaterial to this discussion. I agree.
Because that’s not the point. Whether I think some restrictions should be applied is immaterial.
Quote:Since I wasn't talking about gun control either, anything I say on the topic is immaterial. I agree with that too. The topic is immaterial to my point, so why am I supposed to talk about it? Ooooh, I know Because Finn wants to change the topic to his idee fixe!
I’m not the one claiming that curtailing implied Constitutional rights will lead to the end of our democracy.So the question is, what do you think of gun control?
Quote:Is this a loaded question or a false analogy or an off-topic diversion or just plain bad writing demonstrated by a run-on sentence? Gee, I dunno, but as far as I'm concerned I WAS talking about the right to privacy, and how it may be resticted to further restict the right to free speech and free assembly, both of which are...er... explicit. But apparently irrelevant in Finn's hierarchy of Constitutional rights.
Do you think we should restrict what is obviously an explicit Constitutional right in favor of the safety of the public from the threat of automatic weapons (or conceivable other arms), and if so, how do you reconcile that with your insistence that our democracy will end if we curtail implied Constitutional rights in favor of the safety of the public from terrorism to include the use of explosives, chemical, biological and nuclear threats, all of which are possibilities?
However- and just to prove what a good sport I am, I will- if Finn insists- demonstrate how his argument is fundamentally flawed. But Finn has to insist that I adress this, because it really was not my point.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
the government was lying to us 140 years ago, with the "This war is about slavery" rationale, but we're still bumbling along as a democracy. The fact that we could go from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush leads me to believe that whatever you think of he currnet administration, "This too shall pass."
Thank you for that bit of wisdom. Now tell it to the 30,000+ dead and disabled American soldiers.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
SignyM, if Finn were to respond with a straight up answer something like: "I am personally comfortable with the government restricting or suspending my free speech and privacy rights as it sees fit for any reason however seemingly unconnected to terrorist activities because, by and large, I trust it to do mainly the right thing, and the rest of the country would do well to see it the same way.", would you be okay with that?
It seems to me that straight questions are answered with more questions and examples of things more than actual answers. Or is it just me?
Perplexed Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by Finn mac Cumhal:
To take this phrase and assume that it means that the only guns the People should have are those that are essentially useless against the weaponry these Militias will face in the advent of their necessity is to render such “well-regulated Militias” and the 2nd Amendment obsolete.
Personally, I take 'the people' to mean those who are not insane, criminal-minded, or too young to know the difference, so right there we have to interpret a little, And it was written at a time when weapons that could vaporize a city, or the ability to have a shootout on our moon (if two factions so desired)were so impossible it wasn't even in fantasy novels of the time, so again we are forced to interpret a little more.
If you look at it that way, yeah, I guess some part are, de facto, obsolete.
Keepin' it real (shiny)Chrisisall
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:That’s what I thought.
Originally posted by SignyM:
Is this a loaded question or a false analogy or an off-topic diversion or just plain bad writing demonstrated by a run-on sentence? Gee, I dunno, but as far as I'm concerned I WAS talking about the right to privacy, and how it may be resticted to further restict the right to free speech and free assembly, both of which are...er... explicit. But apparently irrelevant in Finn's hierarchy of Constitutional rights.
However- and just to prove what a good sport I am, I will- if Finn insists- demonstrate how his argument is fundamentally flawed. But Finn has to insist that I adress this, because it really was not my point.
I figured that you would stall and avoid the question. Because it puts you in a corner. Your argument lacks perspective.-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:I would say that is probably a reasonable interpretation. And many people in both camps could find some agreement with that.
Originally posted by chrisisall:
Personally, I take 'the people' to mean those who are not insane, criminal-minded, or too young to know the difference, so right there we have to interpret a little, And it was written at a time when weapons that could vaporize a city, or the ability to have a shootout on our moon (if two factions so desired)were so impossible it wasn't even in fantasy novels of the time, so again we are forced to interpret a little more.
The Constitution has always been interpreted to fit our society. We're not always going to see eye-to-eye on the interpretations, but that is part of what makes us a democracy in theory. One might argue (and unless I’m mistake Hero already did) that flexibility in our government makes us a stronger democracy, not a weaker one.
-------------
Qui desiderat pacem praeparet bellum.
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME
Quote:
Originally posted by SignyM:Quote:
the government was lying to us 140 years ago, with the "This war is about slavery" rationale, but we're still bumbling along as a democracy. The fact that we could go from George H.W. Bush to Bill Clinton to George W. Bush leads me to believe that whatever you think of he currnet administration, "This too shall pass."
Thank you for that bit of wisdom. Now tell it to the 30,000+ dead and disabled American soldiers.
They already know. They volunteered to fight for a system that, while obviously imperfect, works well enough to inspire their loyalty. Works better, in their minds, than anything else available.
Remember we're working with actual people here, not machines or textbook concepts. And even if our government and population were all 100% totally rational (depending on your definition of "rational"), we'd still have to deal with other governments and populations that weren't.
Oh, and what about the fact that our clunky, imperfect, irrational democracy has been bumping along for 200 years, with folks even less honorable that your concept of Dubya at the helm? Was that just an aberration?
"Keep the Shiny side up"
NOTIFY: Y | REPLY | REPLY WITH QUOTE | PERMALINK | TOP | HOME