Philosophy Now Forum

Ok, so you accept that there need to be limits and restrictions on weaponry, and the debate is about what kind of limits and restrictions. Right?

Do you believe the 2nd Amendment permits local jurisdictions to set those and restrictions?

Felasco wrote:Ok, so you accept that there need to be limits and restrictions on weaponry, and the debate is about what kind of limits and restrictions. Right?

Do you believe the 2nd Amendment permits local jurisdictions to set those and restrictions?

Although there needs to be restrictions on anything that presents an immediate danger to others, guns are not one of them. For instance, there should be absolutely no restrictions on the sale or possession of such weapons as fully-automatic AK47s, and local authorities should have absolutely no control over this issue.

Although there needs to be restrictions on anything that presents an immediate danger to others, guns are not one of them.

Huh? It seems all the people killed every year by guns might disagree that guns do not present a danger.

For instance, there should be absolutely no restrictions on the sale or possession of such weapons as fully-automatic AK47s, and local authorities should have absolutely no control over this issue.

Does it say anything about AK47s in the Constitution?

If not, are you saying the Oppressive National Government should pass laws denying local communities the right to decide such things for themselves?

I thought you were a Republican dude!

Felasco wrote:

Although there needs to be restrictions on anything that presents an immediate danger to others, guns are not one of them.

Huh? It seems all the people killed every year by guns might disagree that guns do not present a danger.

For instance, there should be absolutely no restrictions on the sale or possession of such weapons as fully-automatic AK47s, and local authorities should have absolutely no control over this issue.

Does it say anything about AK47s in the Constitution?

If not, are you saying the Oppressive National Government should pass laws denying local communities the right to decide such things for themselves?

I thought you were a Republican dude!

First of all, both Republicans and Democrats are stupid, but Democrats are so stupid, you want to slap them around. The American Energy Party (AEP) is the only political party as pure as the driven snow. You are correct in that AK47s were not mentioned in the Constitution since it was written before Mikhail Kalashnikov was born, but so what? Guns do not present the immediate danger of nitroglycerine, my friend, and the fact they can be used by criminals to kill people has no bearing on the Second Amendment. Local authorities do not trump the U.S. Constitution.

bobevenson wrote:Local authorities do not trump the U.S. Constitution.

Where does it say any of this....

For instance, there should be absolutely no restrictions on the sale or possession of such weapons as fully-automatic AK47s, and local authorities should have absolutely no control over this issue.

... in the U.S. Constitution???

You're chanting memorized slogans from an NRA pamphlet.

Felasco wrote:

bobevenson wrote:Local authorities do not trump the U.S. Constitution.

Where does it say any of this....

For instance, there should be absolutely no restrictions on the sale or possession of such weapons as fully-automatic AK47s, and local authorities should have absolutely no control over this issue.

... in the U.S. Constitution???

You're chanting memorized slogans from an NRA pamphlet.

My friend, you know absolutely nothing about the U.S. Constitution or political science in general, so please, stay away from the subject

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Ah, yes. I do recall I commented along the lines that it is hard to get people to conform to a particular moral coder of behaviour. I think it is all very well for Williams to claim that we need some, "good old fashion vales", but how do you get people to change their moral outlook? I don't think you can.

Well, first of all, you get rid of the leftist educational apparatus that inculcates students with the idea that there are no absolute moral values, starting with completely getting the government out of education (including the abolishment of public schools) and eliminating the tax-exempt status of any school or university. Secondly, you get rid of the "government owes me something" mentality of millions of people that is based on taking money from one person and giving it to another, a government crime that would land an ordinary citizen in jail if he tried to do it. How's that for starters, my friend?

No, because you did refer me to the Williams article. Williams says:

"Customs, traditions and moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restrictions on inanimate objects"

Williams goes on to say that the benefit of customs, traditions and moral values as a way of regulating behaviour is that people do the right thing even when nobody is looking. Williams is putting forward a moral argument for self discipline not an argument for legislation and laws.

This at least makes Williams' argument consistent. Why? because you can't legislate for personal morality because personal morality must involve a choice. In this case a choice on the part of the individual to behave in a civilized and disciplined manner, regardless of what the law says or does not say.

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:Ah, yes. I do recall I commented along the lines that it is hard to get people to conform to a particular moral coder of behaviour. I think it is all very well for Williams to claim that we need some, "good old fashion vales", but how do you get people to change their moral outlook? I don't think you can.

Well, first of all, you get rid of the leftist educational apparatus that inculcates students with the idea that there are no absolute moral values, starting with completely getting the government out of education (including the abolishment of public schools) and eliminating the tax-exempt status of any school or university. Secondly, you get rid of the "government owes me something" mentality of millions of people that is based on taking money from one person and giving it to another, a government crime that would land an ordinary citizen in jail if he tried to do it. How's that for starters, my friend?

No, because you did refer me to the Williams article. Williams says:

"Customs, traditions and moral values and rules of etiquette, not just laws and government regulations, are what make for a civilized society, not restrictions on inanimate objects"

Williams goes on to say that the benefit of customs, traditions and moral values as a way of regulating behaviour is that people do the right thing even when nobody is looking. Williams is putting forward a moral argument for self discipline not an argument for legislation and laws.

This at least makes Williams' argument consistent. Why? because you can't legislate for personal morality because personal morality must involve a choice. In this case a choice on the part of the individual to behave in a civilized and disciplined manner, regardless of what the law says or does not say.

His article also says: "Moral standards of conduct, as well as strict and swift punishment for criminal behaviors, have been under siege in our country for more than a half-century. Moral absolutes have been abandoned as a guiding principle. We've been taught not to be judgmental, that one lifestyle or value is just as good as another. More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society. At best, the police and criminal justice system are the last desperate line of defense for a civilized society. The more uncivilized we become the more laws are needed to regulate behavior."

And who is doing this teaching? All those leftist teachers and schools supported or run by the government!

And... I am not disagreeing with that. It doesn't change the fact that Williams argument is an argument for personal morality. In your post above quoting Williams:

"Police and laws can can never replace these restraints on personal conduct as to produce a civilized society".

You posted the exact opposite to what Williams is proposing as a solution. That is, you said you want more laws to place restraints on personal conduct.

Ginkgo wrote:And... I am not disagreeing with that. It doesn't change the fact that Williams argument is an argument for personal morality. In your post above quoting Williams:

"Police and laws can can never replace these restraints on personal conduct as to produce a civilized society".

You posted the exact opposite to what Williams is proposing as a solution. That is, you said you want more laws to place restraints on personal conduct.

My friend, Williams and I agree 100% on this issue: "More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society."

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:And... I am not disagreeing with that. It doesn't change the fact that Williams argument is an argument for personal morality. In your post above quoting Williams:

"Police and laws can can never replace these restraints on personal conduct as to produce a civilized society".

You posted the exact opposite to what Williams is proposing as a solution. That is, you said you want more laws to place restraints on personal conduct.

My friend, Williams and I agree 100% on this issue: "More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society."

So you are trying to tell me that Williams is arguing in his article for more laws and restrictions. Is this what you are saying?

Ginkgo wrote:

bobevenson wrote:

Ginkgo wrote:And... I am not disagreeing with that. It doesn't change the fact that Williams argument is an argument for personal morality. In your post above quoting Williams:

"Police and laws can can never replace these restraints on personal conduct as to produce a civilized society".

You posted the exact opposite to what Williams is proposing as a solution. That is, you said you want more laws to place restraints on personal conduct.

My friend, Williams and I agree 100% on this issue: "More often than not, the attack on moral standards has been orchestrated by the education establishment and progressives. Police and laws can never replace these restraints on personal conduct so as to produce a civilized society."

So you are trying to tell me that Williams is arguing in his article for more laws and restrictions. Is this what you are saying?

Hell no, laws are the last refuge of a civilized society. We need to get rid of the leftist influence that is the basis of our problems.