Gun Violence Tracker (3 Viewers)

[Old State]

Perhaps. But their numbers are accurate....unless you assume the media reports they are sourcing are not truthful or accurate.

Uhhhh, yeah, I think it's safe to assume media reports are not accurate. The media has reported dubious stats and outright lied on numerous occasions about many things but especially about guns. If you would like me to provide examples I would be more than happy too.


Being that we have access to FBI data there is no need for a tracker like this other than for propaganda purposes.

 

[Old State]

The government takes away our rights and Denys rights regularly. Sometimes unjustly. So in fact they do do this thing you seem to be implying they can't do.

Specifically what are you referring to?

 

[jbutler]

You seem to equate religion with natural rights and they aren't necessarily related. If a crew of astronauts were marooned on Mars there would be no government or laws. Would the individuals not have a right to self defense or freedom of expression? I say they would. They may create a government and set of laws to protect these rights, but the rights existed first.


To me the view that government gives you rights is extremely dangerous for if your rights are derived from government than hey can take them away without cause. The rejection of this concept was the bases of the Founding of our country and the reasons given for separation from Britain. The government is subservient to the people therefore the government cannot give rights. Even Karl Marx believed in this. You only here this in in totaling dictaorships.

Natural Rights is not the same as natural law and has nothing to do with texulaisim or originalism. If natural rights don't exist was is the point of due process? If rights are given by the government then it can just take them away at its leisure.

I'm not confusing anything. You believe you have natural rights by virtue of...something. And I don't. You asked how something can influence society without existing. I gave you an example of another instance of something I believe to be non-existent influencing society.

If you're bothered by the fact that the example occurred within a religion, there are plenty of other secular examples available. Plenty of people have beliefs about gun policy that are based on the numbers provided by the link from the OP in this thread. You believe those numbers represent a reality that doesn't exist. Nonetheless that believed reality motivates beliefs about gun policy. In my opinion the same is true of the founders' and others' beliefs concerning natural rights. They believed in and were motivated by a false reality.

Respectfully, if you spent a lot of time reading discussions of so-called natural rights, you wouldn't be nearly so aghast at my opinion that they are constructs of society rather than intrinsic to human existence. It's a commonly debated topic among those who debate such things.

 

[Chicken Rob]

Specifically what are you referring to?

For the longest time our government denied full human rights to blacks and women for starters. Most recently the bill of rights took a sharp blow from the patriot act lessening our rights to privacy and due process. Clearly the government restricts our rights.

 

[Old State]

I'm not confusing anything. You believe you have natural rights by virtue of...something. And I don't. You asked how something can influence society without existing. I gave you an example of another instance of something I believe to be non-existent influencing society.

If you're bothered by the fact that the example occurred within a religion, there are plenty of other secular examples available. Plenty of people have beliefs about gun policy that are based on the numbers provided by the link from the OP in this thread. You believe those numbers represent a reality that doesn't exist. Nonetheless that believed reality motivates beliefs about gun policy. In my opinion the same is true of the founders' and others' beliefs concerning natural rights. They believed in and were motivated by a false reality.

Respectfully, if you spent a lot of time reading discussions of so-called natural rights, you wouldn't be nearly so aghast at my opinion that they are constructs of society rather than intrinsic to human existence. It's a commonly debated topic among those who debate such things.

Respectfully I have read a great deal about it as it has been a interest of mine (the Constitution, etc) since for the last 25 years. I suppose there were people that believed what you do at our founding but they either were not invited to participate or kept quiet. Alexander Hamilton may have been to closest to such an ideology based on his commentary at the Constitutional Convention but he fully endorsed natural rights in at least one essay he wrote in the the Federalist papers. Frankly that ideology was considered hundreds of years outdated and, like I said, dangerous.

Jefferson was chosen to write the Dec of Ind in part because of his essay "A Summary View of the Rights of British America" which basically a natural rights manifesto.

 

[Old State]

For the longest time our government denied full human rights to blacks and women for starters. Most recently the bill of rights took a sharp blow from the patriot act lessening our rights to privacy and due process. Clearly the government restricts our rights.

True but in historical context, blacks and women weren't afforded many rights anywhere on the globe until the 20th century. Women's suffrage in the US wasn't that far off from the rest of the modern world and before much of it. It is ironic that many on the left make comments like that yet are sympathetic to countries that have medieval standards of human rights.

As for the Patriot Act, you can blame that on the drift from originalism to case law and precedence.

 

[Chicken Rob]

The only societies that believe a persons rights are given to them by their government are totalitarian societies and monarchies.

True but in historical context, blacks and women weren't afforded many rights anywhere on the globe until the 20th century. Women's suffrage in the US wasn't that far off from the rest of the modern world and before much of it. It is ironic that many on the left make comments like that yet are sympathetic to countries that have medieval standards of human rights.

As for the Patriot Act, you can blame that on the drift from originalism to case law and precedence.

Our society in the US currently clearly believes that the government controls our rights. We do not live in a totalitarian state.

Regardless of what drove us to get here, the founders held slaves, denied women votes, and built a government that controls our rights. You seem to be in denial of that fact.

 

[Old State]

Our society in the US currently clearly believes that the government controls our rights. We do not live in a totalitarian state.

Regardless of what drove us to get here, the founders held slaves, denied women votes, and built a government that controls our rights. You seem to be in denial of that fact.

First, I didn't deny anything, and second the leftie cliche "the founders owned slaves etc" isn't a very convincing argument. You seem to be in denial that the US, even with its flaws, was THE global pioneer in government of the people, by the people, for the people and has served as a model for dozens of nations.

What contemparary society "believes" at any given time could only have an impact if the original intent of the law was ignored. Sounds like the perfect argument for originalism.

 

[jbutler]

Very morbid lol at calling the fact that the founders owned slaves a "leftie cliche". That's disgusting.

 

[Old State]

Very morbid lol at calling the fact that the founders owned slaves a "leftie cliche". That's disgusting.

Man you have away of twisting things

 

[jbutler]

Man you have away of twisting things

No twisting necessary since those were your exact words.

 

[Old State]

No twisting necessary since those were your exact words.

No you have been twisting and/or pivoting quite a bit. Now you are trying to troll me into insulting you or something. With a rate of 12 posts a day in less than 2 years, I think you may be just trying to outlast me.

We have already discussed the issue with this type of statement but you didn't comment then. You know what I meant

 

[Meddler2]

Uhhhh, yeah, I think it's safe to assume media reports are not accurate. The media has reported dubious stats and outright lied on numerous occasions about many things but especially about guns. If you would like me to provide examples I would be more than happy too.


Being that we have access to FBI data there is no need for a tracker like this other than for propaganda purposes.

With regard to the local media reports and police reports used by the gun tracker, prove ONE that is inaccurate. I guess those police reports are also deceitful?

Nonetheless you have still not answered the question.

 

[jbutler]

No you have been twisting and/or pivoting quite a bit. Now you are trying to troll me into insulting you or something. With a rate of 12 posts a day in less than 2 years, I think you may be just trying to outlast me.

We have already discussed the issue with this type of statement but you didn't comment then. You know what I meant

I honestly have no idea what you could have meant and I'd be glad to hear that you didn't mean what you said, but I don't know how I could have known you meant something other than exactly what you said.

I also have no idea what you are referring to as our having discussed "the issue with this type of statement" before now.

 

[the3rd]

I believe what Old State meant was, that whenever modern folks want to disagree with the framers of the Constitution, they bring up slavery. If those monsters were so wrong about everything why isn't everyone trying to get rid of the 1st A....?

 

[jbutler]

I believe what Old State meant was, that whenever modern folks want to disagree with the framers of the Constitution, they bring up slavery. If those monsters were so wrong about everything why isn't everyone trying to get rid of the 1st A....?

No one said they were wrong about everything, but there's nothing wrong with bringing up the facts to show neither were they right about everything and in at least a few instances showed themselves to have enormous moral and ethical blind spots.

 

[Old State]

I honestly have no idea what you could have meant and I'd be glad to hear that you didn't mean what you said, but I don't know how I could have known you meant something other than exactly what you said.

I also have no idea what you are referring to as our having discussed "the issue with this type of statement" before now.

I believe what Old State meant was, that whenever modern folks want to disagree with the framers of the Constitution, they bring up slavery. If those monsters were so wrong about everything why isn't everyone trying to get rid of the 1st A....?

What "the 3rd" just said. We discussed it just today. You know exactly what I meant as you have been reading this thread. I thought the discussion was proceeding in a pretty academic way so I really didn't expect the "racist card" to be played....but there it is.

 

[jbutler]

What "the 3rd" just said. We discussed it just today. You know exactly what I meant as you have been reading this thread. I thought the discussion was proceeding in a pretty academic way so I really didn't expect the "racist card" to be played....but there it is.

I still have no idea what you're referring to, but I'm all ears if you'd like to tell me.

 

[Old State]

No one said they were wrong about everything, but there's nothing wrong with bringing up the facts to show neither were they right about everything and in at least a few instances showed themselves to have enormous moral and ethical blind spots.

There is also historical context. Its absurd to apply 21st century morals on 18th century people. The honest approach would to be to judge them by their peers and the times they lived in. Again we discussed this earlier

 

[Old State]

I still have no idea what you're referring to, but I'm all ears if you'd like to tell me.

Explained the 5th time. You are becoming a lawyer stereotype

 

[jbutler]

There is also historical context. Its absurd to apply 21st century morals on 18th century people. The honest approach would to be to judge them by there peers and the times they lived in. Again we discussed this earlier

There was an extraordinarily strong abolitionist movement at the time that the founders owned slaves. These were enlightened people and yet even having been exposed to not only the argument but the example of abolition they chose to own other human beings. It was and is wholly morally and ethically indefensible. To complain that it is still a black mark on their example as human beings and as thinkers is inexplicable to me.

 

[Meddler2]

Yeah too bad the founding fathers really didn't believe that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.
The direct result was the death of 550,000 to 750,000 American soldiers.

 

[jbutler]

Explained the 5th time. You are becoming a lawyer stereotype

I was and am asking honestly. I haven't insulted you. I think it's be fair to expect the same.

 

[Old State]

I was and am asking honestly. I haven't insulted you. I think it's be fair to expect the same.

No your not. I explained it as did another member.....the post directly above when you asked yet again.

 

[the3rd]

No one said they were wrong about everything, but there's nothing wrong with bringing up the facts to show neither were they right about everything and in at least a few instances showed themselves to have enormous moral and ethical blind spots.

I guess blacks had that same moral blind spot. 3000 African Americans owned 20000 slaves in 1860.
http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

 

[jbutler]

I guess blacks had that same moral blind spot. 3000 African Americans owned 20000 slaves in 1860.
http://www.vice.com/read/hey-v12n5

Yes those that owned slaves did. This isn't about race - it's about moral and ethical judgment. The races of the participants is irrelevant. Humans owning humans is wrong and the abolitionist movement was very active at that time.

 

[Old State]

There was an extraordinarily strong abolitionist movement at the time that the founders owned slaves. These were enlightened people and yet even having been exposed to not only the argument but the example of abolition they chose to own other human beings. It was and is wholly morally and ethically indefensible. To complain that it is still a black mark on their example as human beings and as thinkers is inexplicable to me.

The pivot but I'll bite...

No there wasn't. Not in 1787. The abolitionist movement didn't gain serious tradition until the 1830's-40's. Most felt it was immoral and they attempted a solution. However they inherited a economy from colonial times that was largely based on it. To immediately end it would have collapsed the nation.

In the late 1700s slavery and forced labor were the norm across the globe. That they even voiced opinions that it was immoral was exceptional at the time.

What Jefferson said of slavery:
"As it is, we have the wolf by the ear, and we can neither hold him, nor safely let him go. Justice is on one scale, and self-preservation in the other?"

 

[jbutler]

The pivot but I'll bite...

No there wasn't. Not in 1787. The abolitionist movement didn't gain serious tradition until the 1830's. Most felt it was immoral and they attempted a solution. However they inherited a economy from colonial times that was large based on it. To immediately end it would have collapsed the nation

In the late 1700s slavery and forced labor were the norm across the globe. That they even voiced opinions that it was immoral was exceptional at the time.

To believe this you have to be willfully ignorant at best. The founders showed by their own examples they were aware of the virtues of enacting policy with the aim of emancipation and yet continued to own slaves personally. To be aware of the movement and work for it in some capacity and yet still maintain slaves for their personal benefit shows them to have been tremendously morally and ethically flawed even according to their own morals and ethics.

 

[Old State]

To believe this you have to be willfully ignorant at best. The founders showed by their own examples they were aware of the virtues of enacting policy with the aim of emancipation and yet continued to own slaves personally. To be aware of the movement and work for it in some capacity and yet still maintain slaves for their personal benefit shows them to have been tremendously morally and ethically flawed even according to their own morals and ethics.

Sorry, your chronology is wrong. The abolitionist movement didn't gain serious traction in the US until after England and France abolished it.

I have read Madison's notes from the Convention. You can read all the discussions. If you are seriously interested in this you should too. They are free on the internet now.

Now that the racist card has been played lets get back to guns before the bad grammar card is dealt.

BTW, this is a good place to educate yourself

http://americanabolitionist.liberalarts.iupui.edu/brief.htm

 

[jbutler]

Sorry, your chronology is wrong. The abolitionist movement didn't gain serious traction in the US until after England and France abolished it.

I have read Madison's notes from the Convention. You can read all the discussions. If you are seriously interested in this you should too. They are free on the internet now.

Now that the racist card has been played lets get back to guns before the bad grammar card is dealt.

Washington had his will drafted to free his own slaves upon his death. Jefferson enacted laws to move toward gradual abolition. Adams refused to own slaves on moral grounds. Clearly the movement was powerful enough during their time in power to influence these actions and positions. And yet many of the founding fathers chose still to own slaves in spite in spite of this.

You cannot deny he facts above and to the degree that you continue to argue this point you will look silly at best and bigoted at worst.