Is It Possible to be PRO RKBA and PROgressive At The Same Time?

[RSillsbee]

There seems to be a disturbing meme floating around the Gungeon that anyone who posts from a pro Right to keep and BEAR (That means strap one or two on and carry them in public folks) Arms perspective can’t possibly be a real progressive.
I’m trying not to call anyone out but the idea bothers me. Number one because it’s untrue and because it’s a violation of the rule against making right wing smears against democrats.
I believe RKBA is a profoundly progressive ideal because it places the ultimate trust in the people. RKBA says the government trusts the people w/ the ability to over throw it.
So, my answer is yes I am a progressive and I believe in RKBA

[safeinOhio]

1. I think this post on here confirms what

many think about SOME pro=rkba people here think about progressive politics.



"By supporting the NRA, you are supporting Wayne Lapierre, Ted Nugent and Grove Norquist and all they stand for.

If I have to put up with their ilk to enjoy the successes on firearm rights we have been enjoying, I'll take that."

[doc03]

3. I am for the RKBA but wouldn't support the NRA for any reason

all they are is a lobbying group for the GOP.

[hack89]

5. Do support their views on the RKBA?

are you saying you will gladly benefit from their work while at the same time condemning them?

[doc03]

6. I don't have to support a group that is a puppet for the

Rethugs, in order to support the RKBA.

[hack89]

7. But you will happily benefit from their efforts

because what other group do you have to fall back on?

[safeinOhio]

8. Hitler liked cats

I still condemn him. I wouldn't vote for a Klan member over any issue. I don't care what Grover Norquist thinks about guns, he is more of a danger to this country than any other person I know of. I would never buy a Nugent record because of his right wing views and rants. If you would, more power to you.

[TheWraith]

11. And I really doubt anyone here would vote Republican over guns.

If they would, then they should have their mental health evaluated. Some of us just wish some of our elected officials didn't subject us to wall-bangers about "semi-automatic machine guns" and the belief that every American is apparently a potential psychotic mass murderer the second they're allowed to own a gun. Out of curiosity, how would you feel trying to support people who come out spewing about "Reefer Madness" and that pot causes insanity?

[Paladin]

50. A 2008 DU Gungeon Poll Proves You Wrong.

45% of the respondents indicated a willingness to vote Republican over guns. I think you've been here long enough to remember it, haven't you?

And the next time somebody uses a joint to reduce a school/business/home to a slaughter house, I'll give your "Reefer Madness" comparison some thought.....

[TheWraith]

76. I'm sure you can provide a link, right?

And bonus points for the old "Guns are DIFFERENT!" talking point. Never mind the fact that opponents of drugs have been using that EXACT SAME talking point for decades to supposedly differentiate why alcohol is legal and pot isn't. Nevermind the fact that 99.99999% of gun owners never even think about killing another person. Out of curiosity, do you equally support, say, tear gassing Occupy Wall Street protests in order to suppress the one in a thousand of people who might be planning violence?

[iverglas]

77. this forum is an ongoing conversation

If you join the conversation, it's your own responsibility to know what has been said in it. It is no one else's responsibility to provide anyone who jumps in with a point by point recap of what went before, let alone to respond to demands for proof of what was said before.

In point of fact, I posted a link to that poll sometime within the last two weeks. Feel free to read my post.

[Simo 1939_1940]

96. I asked the author of this statement to provide citation on

another thread. Still waiting.

[iverglas]

98. I'll bet you just didn't see my post with the link you demanded

even though you had no standing to demand it. If it's in this forum, it's your responsibility to find it. If you can't find it, then you might politely request assistance.

Look around you. Look for a post in capital letters indicating displeasure at the manners of people making demands they have no standing to make.

[iverglas]

99. oh look, so young and yet so wise

Covered his ears and went wah wah already ... and flopping around making demands.

Very attractive.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

83. One poll from 3 years ago that you dont even link to?

Really? That's all you've got?

[iverglas]

84. OH FOR FUCK'S SAKE

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=475277&mesg_id=476890

Two weeks and two days ago.

The Wraith was all over that thread.

Maybe you managed not to read it. I wouldn't know.

It's always fun to resist the wholly improper demands for a while ... and let 'em all sputter and spin themselves into a boiling fwet ... and then ... oops.

[hack89]

13. The point was that they are the only group in America standing up for the 2nd amendment

so I have a problem with people condemning the NRA on one hand while enjoying the fruits of their efforts on the other.

[RSillsbee]

15. The point is this fucking thread is not about the NRA

please don't try to derail it

[hack89]

22. Many would disagree with you

that is a fundamental issue that can't be avoided - the preeminent organization protecting your 2nd Amendment rights is perceived by many gun grabbers as a RW group. How do you support the NRA and be a progressive is a valid issue to discuss - for some it is the only issue.

[RSillsbee]

29. Many didn't start the fucking thread

I did and all you're doing is allowing the antis to pull it off track

[hack89]

31. Better luck next time. nt

[spin]

51. Agreed. the thread is NOT about the NRA. There are only 4.3 million NRA members ...

in our nation. There are 80 million gun owners.

A one year membership in the NRA costs only $35 and that includes a monthly magazine. $35 is the cost of two 20 round boxes of premium .38+P ammo.

Obviously, most gun owners feel little desire to join the NRA.

[RSillsbee]

57. Spin please

I started this thread in resoponse to all the antis that keep saying any one who supports firearms freedoms can't possibly be a true Progressive. Since, they couldn't answer that they made it "Well you can't support the NRA and be a true Progressive"

Please don't let them turn this thread into a bait and switch

[iverglas]

37. and the actual point, to many ...

The point was that they are the only group in America standing up for the 2nd amendment

... is that there is a reason for that.

[hack89]

38. Yea - a bunch of spineless Democrats. But they are slowly coming around. nt

[spin]

54. Actually you left out the most conservative pro-gun group ...

the GOA (Gun Owners of America) who Ron Paul calls "the only no compromise gun lobby in Washington."

This group feels that the NRA is selling out the rights of American Gun owners. Fortunately the GOA has only 300,000 members compared to the NRA's 4.3 million members.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

78. Not the only group...

Lets see...

Gun Owners of America: http://gunowners.org/
Jews for the Preservation of Firearm Ownership: http://jpfo.org/
Pink Pistols: http://www.pinkpistols.org/
Second Amendment Foundation: http://www.saf.org/

There are more - those were just off the top of my head. There are many groups which fight for the 2nd Amendment - the NRA is simply the largest and oldest.

[iverglas]

79. ah, there ya go again

Does the barrel not go any deeper than that? Surely if you scraped a little harder, you could dig up something even nastier. Not that I can think of much!

:rofl:

[hack89]

89. And the most effective. nt

[We_Have_A_Problem]

91. Definitely the most effective.

No question there. Just don't want people thinking they're the only ones.

[gejohnston]

18. Hitler liked dogs

he had one named Blondie. I don't think Norquist thinks anything about guns other than being a means to an end. I would never buy a Nugent record even if he was one of us, his music just sucks IMHO.

[GreenStormCloud]

59. They also endorse Democrats.

You have been made aware of that fact many times. Naturally they won't endorse an anti-gun Democrat which is what you seem to want.

[hack89]

4. So if you and I see eye to eye on 99 percent of social issues

like marriage equality, pro-choice, pro-union why is my stance towards RTBKA and the NRA significant? Are you really saying that my position on guns renders my other views complete irrelevant? Guns mean that much to you that it is an litmus test?

[safeinOhio]

12. If you see eye to eye with me on 99 percent of

social issues, I'm fine with that, until you say what the poster I quoted said. That is that you'd put up with someone that disagrees with 99% of what you feel is important if that person promotes one issue you favor.

[hack89]

19. So that one percent is enough to make him what? A tea bagger?

a non-progressive? What exactly does that one divergence in opinion say about that person? Is the NRA a litmus test? If so, what organization do you recommend a progressive supporter of the 2nd Amendment join? Who else will protect my rights?

[RSillsbee]

9. I didn't mention the NRA at all

You (as usuall) threw that log on the fire

[TheWraith]

10. That's like saying that if you're in favor of animal rights, you also support PETA.

I seem to recall that our side is supposed to be the one that actually understands nuance.

[safeinOhio]

20. Nuance is finding some of the things

PETA does floats. Tell me what Grover Norquist says that floats. Tell me about the nuance of supporting Wayne Lapierre, Ted Nugent and Grove Norquist and defending them on a progressive forum?

[hack89]

25. I can defend the NRA's position on the 2nd amendment

without ever mentioning Wayne Lapierre's name. If in fact you support the 2A, so can you. There is nothing radical about their views on the 2A.

[doc03]

2. Yes it is, but the RKBA says the government trusts the people

with the ability to overthrow it. A bunch of rag tag citizens with a handgun is going to overthrow the most powerful nation on earth, give me a break. They pepper spray you and taze you for sitting on the sidewalk, you really think the powers that be would hesitate blowing your head off if you are armed?

[RSillsbee]

16. There are 80 million plus gun owners in this country

I think we could do some damage if necessary

[Starboard Tack]

60. Don't you think thet are doing enough damage already?

There were 52,447 deliberate and 23,237 accidental non-fatal gunshot injuries in the United States during 2000. The majority of gun-related deaths in the United States are suicides, with 17,352 (55.6%) of the total 31,224 firearm-related deaths in 2007 due to suicide, while 12,632 (40.5%) were homicide deaths.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_violence_in_the_United_States

[gejohnston]

61. has decreased since then

we both know it is not "gun owners" that is responsible for most of the problem. Yes most of the gun deaths are suicides and most of US suicides are by firearm. That does not mean that any suicides would be prevented.

[Starboard Tack]

68. Consider these facts

For every successful suicide there are 11 unsuccessful suicide attempts. How many of those 11 do you think were attempted with a firearm?
73% of all suicide deaths are white males. 80% of all firearm suicide deaths are white males.

And these stats only represent reported attempts. One can only imagine how many go unreported.

[gejohnston]

71. few to none because

most unsuccessful suicides are cries for help. That is why they take pills or slit wrists and make phone calls. People who hang and shoot themselves don't want help. A friend of my brother chose drinking battery acid instead of selecting one of his parents' guns for the former reason.

[Starboard Tack]

72. Exactly. Now look at the states with the highest suicide rates

You'll find they are all high percentage gun owning states like Alaska, Montana, Nevada, New Mexico and Vermont. The lowest are DC, New York, Massachusetts and New Jersey.

[gejohnston]

73. You should know my first thought by now

post hoc ergo propter hoc


Look at the suicide rates of the US compared to Canada, Japan, South Korea.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate
South Africa loses both ways. It has very strict gun laws yet not only has a higher suicide rate, but their murder rate is astronomical.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_suicide_rate

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_countries_by_intentional_homicide_rate

http://www.afsp.org/index.cfm?fuseaction=home.viewPage&page_id=05114FBE-E445-7831-F0C1494E2FADB8EA

[Starboard Tack]

104. We've been around this block before.

Suicide is a fact of life in just about every society. Each one is culturally unique and as fascinating as it may be to compare and analyze the differences, we are discussing the US and whether the availability of firearms substantially increases the likelihood of a successful suicide, or as you suggest, they'd do it regardless. It is true that males tend to use methods less likely to fail, but considering the fact that, on average, for every successful suicide, there are 20 unsuccessful ones, I cannot help but conclude that the use of firearms is highly relevant. Obviously, we cannot know for sure how relevant.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

82. So what?

Really - so fucking what? Do you REALLY think doing away with guns is going to make a difference?

Our suicide rate has been very consistent over the years. The graph is damn near a straight line. Take the gun away and they'll use a different method - simple as that.

Look at Japan - one of the highest suicide rates in the world and no guns...kinda fucks your whole argument to hell doesn't it?

[We_Have_A_Problem]

81. Nah - that's criminal behavior, not revolt.

Suicides are kinda stupid to lump into that anyway since the people are doing it to themselves.

[Starboard Tack]

102. Your profound empathy is truly astounding.

I'm sure it is only matched by the sympathy you feel for the millions affected by those tragedies. Good luck.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

105. Empathy and sympathy....

...are irrelevant when discussing rights. How you or anyone else may feel about something has zero bearing.

Maybe you let such things guide your opinions on which of your rights you should give up, but I do not.

[krispos42]

23. It's never that simple

But it does depend almost entirely on the percent of the population that is dissatisfied and willing to act in a guerrilla fashion. The stuff that the Iraqis did, the stuff that the Afghans do right now, THAT is the kind of war that a rebellion in the US would have to move to, at least in the opening stages.

Obviously, the armed citizens of America, in revolt, wouldn't be able to march and fight like a conventional army; they'd get slaughtered in a stand-up fight. Putting on camo and forming a battle line isn't going to work against a military with armored fighting vehicles, artillery, and close air support. It would work against a police force; they don't have heavy weapons beyond a quantity of breeching explosives and a handful of armored cars intended for hostage-rescue and riot control. But not an army.


But we saw how a relative handful of Iraqis managed to cost the US hundreds of billions of dollars a year to keep a country the size of Texas marginally subdued... and the destruction and economic collapse of Iraq wasn't even reflected in the US.

If a similar operation was underway by the Federal government to keep order in Texas, we would have to spend hundreds of billions of dollars a year for a decade to keep Texas in the Union against insurgent attacks by Texicans, while at the same time losing a trillion dollars a year of economic activity as Texas' economy collapsed into rampant unemployment and non-productivity.

And American soldiers suffered enough PTSD killing people that are quite different from us; can you imagine the unpopularity of the troops if they had to perform the same duties in Texas, against people like them? Seeing American, Texican children caught in the crossfire, seeing grieving mothers bury their children with Christian prayers in English?

And can you imagine roving bands of loyalist Texican agents and non-Texas sympathizers moving through the country, performing acts of sabotage that further sap the economy and slow the ability of the Federal government to produce and ship war materials?


There is a solid history of insurgent/guerrilla campaigns becoming better armed and more professional as civil wars drag on. Remember, a lot of the high-tech weapons are useless or nearly so against insurgents, so they tend to fall by the wayside as effort it put into boots-on-the-ground infantry. As as the rebellious side gathers arms and armaments from raids and hijackings they also get more conventional.

:shrug:

Whichever way you slice it, it become a giant fucking mess. I don't have guns because I envision joining in a rebellion, or fighting against one as part of a local militia. I have guns because they're fun to shoot, and I want to be able to defend myself if I'm attacked or if the US collapses.

I don't anticipate having to defend against a foreign invading enemy, but hey, if I'm pressed into the line alongside regular GIs, I imagine I'll be able to get a few shots down-range with them.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

80. Not to put too fine a point on it...

...but a bunch of rag-tag citizens with small arms pretty well kicked the shit out of the US over in some little country named Vietnam - and the US wasnt exactly being careful about how the local landscape looked when we were done.

There are over 80 million gun owners in the US. There are less than 1 million total armed individuals working for the government. (bear in mind most of the military are support, not actual combat troops) and things like warships or strategic bombers, tanks, etc. wouldn't work very well or go over well in the press.

Even if only 1% of the gun owners in this nation decided to start shooting back, they outnumber the government by 8:1, and many of those are former military and they have extensive support structures and logistics the government cannot hope to match.

Those are real numbers Doc. If the people wanted to overthrow the US government, it could be done VERY easily. That was and is the whole reason for the 2nd Amendment.

[RSillsbee]

14. And the first fucking post pulls the thread into the gutter

This. Is. Not. A. Thread About. The. Fucking. NRA.

I want to know who believes it is not possible to support the right of the people to keep and bear arms while supporting progressive ideals

Capice?

[safeinOhio]

21. and I gave you an example.

I said "SOME" and pointed out one.

[Union Scribe]

42. We call it the gutter. They call it home court. nt

[spin]

17. Of course you can hold progressive views and still support RKBA ...

The Bill of Rights is a very liberal and progressive document.

[safeinOhio]

24. I totally agree.

However, there are those that would throw out anything liberal or progressive to focus on one issue. Just as you may think that registration or mandatory background checks on private sales of handgun is an option to consider, there are those that would call that anti-gun rights and we all know that you support gun rights. I tend to throw out the extreme views on both sides of the issue as crazy people.

[spin]

27. Registration of firearms does not appeal to me ...

I feel that it would be expensive to implement and would do little to solve crimes. It would also fail as many gun owners would simply refuse to register their firearms. Firearm registration is a failure in Canada and if it doesn't work there, it will never work in the United States. One major drawback is that any attempt to require gun registration would lead to a backlash that would benefit Republicans and hurt Democrats. The NRA would probably double its membership overnight.

I believe that private sales of ALL firearms should be required to go through an NICS background check as long as the cost is reasonable and no further registration of the firearms involved is required beyond what currently exists for dealer sales. Of course the NRA opposes this idea but they also initially opposed the NICS background check that we have today. This idea may be impossible to accomplish in the current political environment but may be possible in the future. It would help stop many of the tragedies that occur when people are able to bypass the NICS background check by buying from a private citizen.

In my opinion, most of our federal gun control laws are reasonable but need better enforcement. The NICS background check needs to be better financed and improved in order to be more accurate and faster.

[RSillsbee]

28. My problem w/ requiring ALL gun sales to go through NICS

is that I don't think it would have any effect on crime and it would just open the door for the next restriction.

In Colorado all firearms sales at a gunshow must go through NICS and it's been that way for ten or 15 years. Hasn't effected the crime rate at all that i am aware of.

[spin]

30. Under the Colorado system a criminal can still buy a firearm from a private citizen ...

If I have a firearm for sale, I have no way of knowing the background of a stranger who wants to buy it from me.

I will not sell any of my firearms to someone that I do not personally know well and that person has to have a valid concealed weapons permit. Obviously I don't sell many firearms. The last time I did was when I was in the process of moving from Tampa and I sold several of my firearms to a co-worker that I often went shooting with who had a permit. That was five years ago.

[RSillsbee]

34. Well yeah,

Because that's where criminals get their guns they read the Thrifty Nickle and go pay 600$ for a 300$ 20YO Winchester 30-30

[Starboard Tack]

63. It was a very liberal and progressive document in the 18th century

Though it did not apply to Free Blacks and other "non-citizens".
Fortunately the BoR is a work in progress and hopefully will continue to be.

[gejohnston]

64. Free blacks in the south

not so much in the north.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

85. Wrong once again...

Damn you're obtuse, and ignorant.

It absolutely applied to free blacks - and women - and any other sub group you care to vomit forth.

Did you even walk through a civics class?

[ObamaFTW2012]

26. Well,

I am pro:

gun rights, because I feel that the 2nd Amendment should be interpreted broadly, and in favor of an armed populace
gay marriage, because marriage is a personal commitment between two people who love each other, not a commitment by two people to the state,
marijuana legalization, because it makes no sense that alcohol is legal but pot isn't,
Obama, because I'm happy we finally put a black man in office, he hasn't tried to take my guns, he supported (when he was campaigning) legalizing pot, and the man can actually speak without sounding like an imbecile ("nook-you-lir", duh)


I am anti:

Republican, because they have a way of using half-ass justified wars to drain our resources for shit that doesn't matter most of the time and have sent my family into harm's way for their shit that doesn't matter most of the time,
Patriot Act, because it is offensive to me as an advocate of freedom,
RICO Act, because it is abused by the government as a way to generate revenue through bullshit asset forfeiture laws,
illegal aliens, because I work hard to run a small business that is barely surviving, yet I am losing jobs to companies I know employ illegals and don't pay insurance or fair wages,
commercial airlines, because I hate paying much higher airfare for the "privilege" of waiting in longer lines for my opportunity to be interrogated by imbeciles why they grope my wife and rummage through my luggage, just so some bureaucrat can claim to be doing something about "terrorism",
"professional welfare recipient", because I grew up around them and I know from my own experiences that they don't appreciate the free ride they get, and as a small business owner I am now paying taxes that kill me with the knowledge that my tax money is funding their unappreciative laziness (disclaimer - I don't believe all people are like them, but their numbers are significant),
Joe Biden, because he puts his foot in his mouth so often that it makes my man Obama look bad, and that sucks,
creationism, because.....who's stupid enough to really believe the Earth is 6000 years old? (or whatever they say, I forget),
Baptist, because they are the worst liars I have ever met,
white supremacists and black militant separatists, because they're intolerant assholes,
Affirmative Action, because I want to achieve things in life based on the merits of my work and my skills and talents, not because someone is afraid of not giving me a hand up because I'm black - I'm no charity case and would be insulted and ashamed to advance through life based on my skin tone

[rrneck]

32. Progressives (and liberals) advocate

the use of government for the advancement of society. When the government is tasked to empower people through the legalization of technology and training in its proper use, we are using government to help us deal with changes in our culture and our cultural environment. Thus, concealed carry and open carry laws that require training in the law and rules of engagement help us all, firearm owner or not, to deal with technology that will never go away. Progress through positive governmental action. That's progressive.

And fuck the NRA. :evilgrin:

[gejohnston]

40. I would

fuck the NRA only if it could transform itself into, OK being to literal. I say piss on the people in charge.

[rrneck]

47. Oh. I was mostly pulling the OP's leg

since around here they can't stop worrying about the NR and that's not what he asked.

But it's true I don't have much use for it just because it's Just another blood sucking business making money hand over fist through disaster capitalism.

[Simo 1939_1940]

33. Yes. And at the risk of being a boor (through repetition)

allow me to once again post a link to an article wherein the author states exactly why much better than I could:

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

Included in my definition of a progressive:

A progressive is a person who is able to confront their own biases and modify/reverse their position as empirical evidence dictates. Along these lines, liberal Democratic criminologists James Wright, Peter Rossi and Gary Kleck would certainly meet the definition of progressive IMO. Originally, all suscribed to the idea that more guns must equal more gun crime - and reversed their positions when empirical evidence failed to support this notion.

[RSillsbee]

35. Thanks for that link

If anyone else missed it here it is again

http://www.dailykos.com/story/2010/07/04/881431/-Why-liberals-should-love-the-Second-Amendment

[Simo 1939_1940]

74. You're welcome. Hard to pick even a few favorite lines in

such a well-written piece, but here's the one so many of us feel strongly about:

This is an appeal to every liberal who never wants to lose another election to Republicans because they have successfully persuaded the voters that Democrats will not protect their Second Amendment rights.

[iverglas]

36. nope

I work from your definition:

pro Right to keep and BEAR (That means strap one or two on and carry them in public folks) Arms

and that's my answer to the question in your subject line:

Is It Possible to be PRO RKBA and PROgressive At The Same Time?

You changed the question in the body of your post.

Number one because it’s untrue and because it’s a violation of the rule against making right wing smears against democrats.

So that didn't work, did it?

:rofl:

Do note that "progressives" and "Democrats" (I assume you meant to capitalize it) are not an identical set. Far, far from it.

I believe RKBA is a profoundly progressive ideal because it places the ultimate trust in the people. RKBA says the government trusts the people w/ the ability to over throw it.

And I believe that's utter nonsense, and I strongly suspect you agree. I mean, I wouldn't want to accuse you of "believing" nonsense.

But then, maybe there really are people wandering around the malls and campuses of the USofA with their guns strapped on just in case there's a sudden need to overthrow a government ...

[RSillsbee]

39. I strongly suspect you agree.

And I strongly suspect you are dead wrong.

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness

http://www.earlyamerica.com/earlyamerica/freedom/doi/text.html

The founding documents of America acknowledge that human beings have the right to overthrow a corrupt or tyrannical government. No other country on the face of this planet acknowledges that right (And I’m sure that , as a subject of the British Crown that just chaps your ass) but it would be just so many words except that the right to own, possess and carry the means to do that is built right into the foundation of this country
Now that is a progressive ideal.

Having said that I now must ask if you don’t believe it’s possible to be both Progressive and pro RKBA are you saying that any pro RKBA participant in this forum is not a progressive? Please answer specifically

[iverglas]

48. hahahahaha

No other country on the face of this planet acknowledges that right (And I’m sure that , as a subject of the British Crown that just chaps your ass) but it would be just so many words except that the right to own, possess and carry the means to do that is built right into the foundation of this country

If only it chapped your ass that you make youself look ... the way that makes you look ... in public.

Are you a subject of Barack Obama? I'll bet you'd think that someone who said you were was an ignorant bigot. Even though he actually does run the show where you're at, while the British monarch has zero to do with our show, and has no subjects at all. So maybe I can see why you're the ones fretting about overthrowing tyrants, and we've grown out of that silliness ...

:rofl:

I'll tell you what my country acknowledges. It's called the right of peoples to self-determination.

Reference re Secession of Quebec, <1998> 2 S.C.R. 217

That's an actual binding judgment of the Supreme Court of Canada, under the Constitution of Canada, not some musty parchment with no enforceable effect.

Our democratic institutions necessarily accommodate a continuous process of discussion and evolution, which is reflected in the constitutional right of each participant in the federation to initiate constitutional change. This right implies a reciprocal duty on the other participants to engage in discussions to address any legitimate initiative to change the constitutional order. A clear majority vote in Quebec on a clear question in favour of secession would confer democratic legitimacy on the secession initiative which all of the other participants in Confederation would have to recognize.

That's how we do stuff in the 21st century.

Democratically.

And so you are wrong, again. Oh, by the way, the right of every citizen to vote (and be elected to any office, and including on a secession referendum, which there in fact has been) - i.e. "to institute new government" - is set out in section 3 of Part I of my constitution, right after those fundamental freedom things.

I guess if you plan to democratically elect a tyranny, of course, you'll need some way to get yourselves out of it. Just seems like an odd plan, to me.

So, now we've disposed of your ethnocentric nonsense ...


Having said that I now must ask if you don’t believe it’s possible to be both Progressive and pro RKBA are you saying that any pro RKBA participant in this forum is not a progressive?

Actually, I do have no problem answering that.

This is a website for Democrats and other progressives.

That's kind of like saying "this is a website for Fords and other pickup trucks". Some Fords are pickup trucks, some pickup trucks are Fords. Certainly not all progressives are Democrats (even leaving aside progressives who are not USAmericans, of course), but also, very definitely, not all Democrats are progressives. I need only say "Heath Shuler", to state the very obvious. And of course this would be why you have the Congressional Progressive Caucus, composed mainly of members of the Democratic Party bloc in your Congress (and on which I make no comment other than to note its existence - founded by Bernie Sanders, of course, whose support is based in the Vermont Progressive Party). If all Democrats were progressives, it would be redundant.

I don't have to adopt whatever strange definition of "progressive" is being used in the official website statement quoted above, to the extent that it implies that all Democrats are progressives. The actual meaning of "progressive" is as given in my post 45. Genuine progressives value both individual freedom and individual rights - and in this century, those rights include equality and security. Genuine progressives also value collective rights: to self-determination, to development, to the environment, to security. (And of course it's interesting to note that some funny old 18th century "liberals" also had a glimmer of that notion, with that right to overthrow tyranny stuff: the fundamental collective right to self-determination.)

My answer to the question is based on the definition of "progressive" that I apply, which is the traditional definition from the 20th century, not whatever idiosyncratic definition might be applied in some particular place in this decade of the 21st. This may help.

So I have no idea who here is or is not a Democrat, and I must operate on the assumption that all are, or are at least some sort of "liberal" fellow travellers.

But I can answer your question very easily: no one, including anyone in this forum, who is

pro Right to keep and BEAR (That means strap one or two on and carry them in public folks) Arms

is progressive.

That's not an insult or a smear or anything else you might like to call it. I'm sure there are lots of lovely people who are not progressive. I've always been fond of Joe Biden, for instance, but I wouldn't call him a progressive, although he shows some promise and if sat down and beaten about the ears for a while (as Kucinich was on reproductive choice, finally becoming a true progressive when he "got" it), you never know.

It's the conclusion reached by applying the proper definition of "progressive" and seeing that the position stated does not fall within that definition.

[ObamaFTW2012]

49. Excuse me, but

The Constitution of the United States is not "some musty parchment with no enforceable effect." It is the blueprint from which our government was built, amended from time to time to "remodel" our government as society changes. It has served us well for over 2 centuries.

I am an American, and I love my country, despite the Republicans, neo-nazis, racial tensions, and everything else that makes some of us ashamed. I find such a statement to be insulting, and I ask that you edit your post to retract your insult. It is no less offensive than if you were to call me a "n" word.

[iverglas]

52. well you may want to excuse yourself to your fellow USAmericans

What was quoted at me was this:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, 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. That to secure these rights, governments are instituted among men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed. That whenever any form of government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

You say: The Constitution of the United States is not "some musty parchment with no enforceable effect." etc. etc.

Sadly, the passage quoted is not from your Constitution, it is from the United States Declaration of Independence.

Whose ass does it chap that a foreigner didn't even have to look that up, and you are so totally all wet?

The US Declaration of Independence has no enforceable effect anywhere. Whatever effect it did have, it was spent upon accession to independence, although like many historical documents it may continue to inspire or otherwise influence people in later times.

I find such a statement to be insulting, and I ask that you edit your post to retract your insult. It is no less offensive than if you were to call me a "n" word.

There is sure somebody here who had better be retracting his vicious and extrarodinarily offensive and no less dumb insult.

[ObamaFTW2012]

55. Ok, so

I got the document wrong. I made a mistake. I thought you were saying something you weren't.

I apologize.

[iverglas]

56. fine

[Union Scribe]

41. True, it's a tiring and banal smear job

We're told in a wide range of ways, from gross insinuation to flat out accusation, that we're not liberals and I dare say by now most posters here have been reported to the House UnProgressive Activities Committee by people who can't even imagine a gun rights poster being anything but a bloodthirsty murderer-in-waiting. I wish they'd get a new hobby.

[Festivito]

43. Yes. Personally, I find allowing guns MORE progressive in reducing gun misuse.

My underlying belief is that when we offer people the responsibility of being free along with letting them be free, people learn to be responsible in their usages.

This applies to guns, drugs, abortions, and more.

Yes, there are and will be horrifying acts and stories about those bad acts, but, horrifying stories will occur following the opposite belief as well: that we must use government to force us to act properly.

So, they say I'm not progressive enough, and I say they're not progressive enough.

Big whoop!

[iverglas]

53. let's parse that out

My underlying belief is that when we offer people the responsibility of being free along with letting them be free, people learn to be responsible in their usages.
This applies to guns, drugs, abortions, and more.

Exactly what are pregnant women responsible for in making decisions about their pregnancies, and to whom are they responsible?

I'll answer that for you: nothing and nobody.

So take your ugly analogies and stick them up that gun barrel.

Of course, the other important point here is that the same actually applies to people with firearms: they are not actually responsible for anything to anybody.

Responsibility necessarily implies accountability.

I am responsible for keeping my roof clear of snow and ice; if I fail in that responsibility and someone is injured or killed by snow and ice falling from my roof, I am accountable for that.

If I am not accountable, then I have no responsibility.

Pregnant women, and you want to take very careful note of this, are not accountable for the decisions they make and the actions they take regarding their pregnancies.

And the point here is that firearms owners are also not accountable for the decisions they make and the actions they take regarding their firearms. They are accountable for crimes committed, but for nothing else.

They are not accountable for transferring their firearms to ineligible people, just for one example. They are not accountable for making their firearms accessible to unauthorized people (like children and thieves and ineligible friends and family). They are not accountable for any of a myriad of decisions they make and actions they take regarding their firearms.

And that is the entire point.

Unless you have some proposal for holding firearms owners accountable, your tired burble about "responsibility" is just fancy words for "we don't give a shit".

[Name removed]

58. Deleted message

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Festivito]

108. For my own recollection.

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 11:54 AM
Response to Reply #43
53. let's parse that out

My underlying belief is that when we offer people the responsibility of being free along with letting them be free, people learn to be responsible in their usages.
This applies to guns, drugs, abortions, and more.

Exactly what are pregnant women responsible for in making decisions about their pregnancies, and to whom are they responsible?

I'll answer that for you: nothing and nobody.

So take your ugly analogies and stick them up that gun barrel.

Of course, the other important point here is that the same actually applies to people with firearms: they are not actually responsible for anything to anybody.

Responsibility necessarily implies accountability.

I am responsible for keeping my roof clear of snow and ice; if I fail in that responsibility and someone is injured or killed by snow and ice falling from my roof, I am accountable for that.

If I am not accountable, then I have no responsibility.

Pregnant women, and you want to take very careful note of this, are not accountable for the decisions they make and the actions they take regarding their pregnancies.

And the point here is that firearms owners are also not accountable for the decisions they make and the actions they take regarding their firearms. They are accountable for crimes committed, but for nothing else.

They are not accountable for transferring their firearms to ineligible people, just for one example. They are not accountable for making their firearms accessible to unauthorized people (like children and thieves and ineligible friends and family). They are not accountable for any of a myriad of decisions they make and actions they take regarding their firearms.

And that is the entire point.

Unless you have some proposal for holding firearms owners accountable, your tired burble about "responsibility" is just fancy words for "we don't give a shit".
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 02:55 PM
Response to Reply #53
58. Let me get his straight. You think a person should not be responsible for their own decisions!?

"Exactly what are pregnant women responsible for in making decisions about their pregnancies, and to whom are they responsible?"

Themselves.

You say: nothing and nobody.

Is this really where we disagree?
Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 02:57 PM
Response to Reply #58
59. I do urge you to get it straight

Let me know when you think you've managed it.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #59
66. To thine own self be true, iverglas. Straight enough for you?

Or, do you and Shakespeare have problems with each other as well.
Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 05:09 PM
Response to Reply #58
67. let me help you out

You think a person should not be responsible for their own decisions!?

is the most pure and utter cabbage.

First, you have made a statement and stuck some punctuation on the end of it.

Have some guts. If you want to make a statement, make, it, and TAKE RESPONSIBILITY for it. It's a false statement, and it's yours, whether you want to try to SHIRT RESPONSIBILITY for it or not.

What rational person would think that a person "should not be responsible for their own decisions"?

Who do they think should be responsible for a person's decisions? The Wizard of Oz? And how would that work, exactly?

Cabbage. Pickled.


Exactly what are pregnant women responsible for in making decisions about their pregnancies, and to whom are they responsible?
Themselves.

Ah yes. And they may smite themselves if they are, uh, "irresponsible".

Saying that someone is responsible "to themself" is saying nothing. Precisely nothing.

You say: nothing and nobody.

Yup. They are not responsible FOR anything, and they are not responsible TO anyone, in making decisions about their own pregnancy. The state of being pregnant does not operate to assign a pregnant woman any responsibility for anything, to anyone.

And you, of course, have not said anything to the contrary, to actually answer my question.

Is this really where we disagree?

I am not capable of disagreeing with pickled cabbage.

Perhaps you are saying firearms owners are responsible "to themselves" for the decisions they make and the actions they take regarding their firearms.

To which I reply, of course, that you have once again said precisely nothing.

What you haven't done is anything to bolster that silly business about firearms and responsibility, anyhow.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 06:47 PM
Response to Reply #67
71. Help back at ya.

People are responsible to themselves. (Saying so, is just too obvious to be said like utter cabbage - pickled -- to iverglas.) But, it was spoken in light of your question: to whom should they be responsible. That coming from my saying belief in letting people be more free with guns fosters more responsible action that I would see as progressive - not the opposite of progressive as is the concern of the OP.

Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 07:16 PM
Response to Reply #71
72. rhubarb

Back to the beginning now.

My underlying belief is that when we offer people the responsibility of being free along with letting them be free, people learn to be responsible in their usages.

And if they don't?

Fuck the dead people, right? And the injured, and brutalized, and terrorized. And their families and friends and communities.

I suppose they were responsible for what happened to them.


People are responsible to themselves. (Saying so, is just too obvious to be said like utter cabbage - pickled -- to iverglas.) But, it was spoken in light of your question: to whom should they be responsible.

Who in the fucking hell cares about gun owners being "responsible to themselves"?

Do you actually expect me to believe this is what your first statement meant?
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 07:53 PM
Response to Reply #72
77. I answered that in my first post on this thread.

Either way, people are injured, brutalized, terrorized and dead. So, if no one cares, let's default on the side of being free, since freedom invokes progress, i.e. progressive, and is liberating, i.e. liberal.
Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 10:41 PM
Response to Reply #77
81. I always love it when "liberals" fly their true colours

"I'm all right, Jack."
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 11:09 PM
Response to Reply #81
82. True colors such as progress and freedom, together?

I hope Jack is pleased.
Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 11:17 PM
Response to Reply #82
83. no, true colours as in

"Fuck you, Jack, I'm all right".

The original version; perhaps it will be more familiar to you. If you still don't get it, look it up. Another way of putting it is: "Devil take the hindmost."

You're the one who doesn't give a shit about anybody else. Don't try to construct an "us" around that one. And don't try to pretend that sentiment is progressive.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Sun Nov-20-11 11:47 PM
Response to Reply #83
85. You seem relentlessly indirect for someone who chides: "If you want to make a statement, make, it."

Are you sure I don't care, how instead you'd be psychologically projecting that on me?

I have a different idea on how to reduce gun abuse, drug abuse, even abortion abuse -- and I mean abuse, not use. If I truly did not care about anybody else, I wouldn't bother trying to talk about my ideas.

Should I be taking those statements you directed at me and direct them back at you?
Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-21-11 12:26 AM
Response to Reply #85
86. if you think I'm remotely interested

in anything, anything at all, that someone who could even construct a sentence containing the words "abortion abuse" might say about anything -- you're dead wrong. Those words say enough about you to settle that issue.

You're the one who acknowledged not caring about the people harmed by firearms use. Not "abuse". Use. Use for the purpose for which they are designed: putting bullets in things.

You're the one who thinks the world should sit by and wait for firearms owners to be "responsible". Or not. Luck of the draw.

As I said: you're alright, Jack.

Unless some day you aren't. But I guess that will be your responsibility.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-21-11 01:16 AM
Response to Reply #86
87. I say over and over that I care, and you say I acknowledged that I don't. (Not to my recollection)

I wade through your hyperbole and obtuse sarcasm wondering what is the real reason there seems to be so much anger. But, for that, there may be need for trust that has not arrived so far.

There are possible abuses of abortion, a lying doctor, a mistaken impression the husband did not want the child, hypochondria, ... I'd prefer that abortions be safe, available, unwanted and unneeded. If you don't like that, okay, I don't understand why.

With guns, I'd prefer people being free to own and use guns while be comfortable enough not to carry them about except when going somewhere to enjoy the use.

With drugs, ... it continues in the same vane.
Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

iverglas Donating Member (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-21-11 02:16 AM
Response to Reply #87
88. what word salads you create

"Possible abuses of abortion". What utter nonsense.

You would rather make no sense in public than acknowledge that your position is driven by self-interest and nothing else.

This is what you said:


Yes. Personally, I find allowing guns MORE progressive in reducing gun misuse.

My underlying belief is that when we offer people the responsibility of being free along with letting them be free, people learn to be responsible in their usages.

This applies to guns, drugs, abortions, and more.


First, you drew a grossly offensive and totally improper analogy between the "usages" of guns and the "usages" of abortion.

Women "use" abortion to carry out decisions about their own healthcare.

People "use" firearms to kill, rob, intimidate, and terrorize: family members, acquaintances, strangers, communities.

There is no "responsibility" involved in either scenario.

Women are neither responsible nor irresponsible in making and carrying out their healthcare decisions.

People who use guns for the purposes described are not being "irresponsible", they are being criminal.

Your suggestion that people be "offered responsibility" and that they will thereby become "responsible" in relation to firearms is the most utter and complete garbage talk. It means nothing. It is not connected in even the most tenuous way to reality. And it demonstrates the most utter and complete lack of concern for the welfare of anyone at all.


With guns, I'd prefer people being free to own and use guns while be comfortable enough not to carry them about except when going somewhere to enjoy the use.

People who are killed, injured, robbed, intimidated or terrorized by people with guns don't really give a shit what you prefer. See? Most particularly when what you "prefer" is actually some kind of "libertarian" (you know the word I want to use) credo and has no rational connection to the reality of those people's lives or life in general.

You can believe whatever you choose to believe. You can believe that things fall up when you drop them. They won't. Your claimed belief that "freedom" in relation to firearms will produce "responsibility" on the part of people who have them holds exactly as much water.

If I were to act on your belief that things fall up when you drop them, I might crush my foot when I dropped a box of books. If a society were to act on your belief that no controls on firearms possession are needed, even more people would suffer.

And I'm still waiting for any indication that you would give a crap.
Alert Printer Friendly | Permalink | Reply | Top

Festivito (1000+ posts) Journal Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-21-11 10:47 AM
Response to Reply #88
102. One thing about your word salad: you use a lot of ingredients. But, I think you argue just to argue.

You ignore completely what I last said, instead jumping back and repeating arguments you presented earlier.

You seem assured in your belief that I don't care. I think I do and have shown how. Perhaps you could at least acknowledge that we disagree there.

I don't think this is going to be a productive discussion anymore.

I wish you well. Good day to you.
Big government IS NOT the problem, big money is.
Alert | Add to my Journal Printer Friendly | Permalink | Edit | Reply | Top

We_Have_A_Problem (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view this author's profile Click to add this author to your buddy list Click to add this author to your Ignore list Mon Nov-21-11 09:55 AM
Response to Reply #58
99. Funny...

...I always figured pregnant women were responsible for making the choice to have sex, deciding if they want to remain pregnant, and after the child is born, responsible for raising it.

Who the hell said they are not responsible for anything? Good lord - what kind of twisted mind thinks a pregnant woman bears no responsibility?

[slackmaster]

44. Freedom of choice and individual liberty are progressive values

A lot of people don't get it.

[iverglas]

45. and a lot of people, you included, don't get "progressive"

"Progressive" is not "liberal".

"Progressive" is the 20th century advance on "liberal".

"Liberal" is about what people who don't have to worry about food and shelter and safety want for themselves.

"Progressive" is about what the ordinary people of the world need and deserve.


http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Four_Freedoms

In the future days, which we seek to make secure, we look forward to a world founded upon four essential human freedoms. The first is freedom of speech and expression—everywhere in the world. The second is freedom of every person to worship God in his own way—everywhere in the world. The third is freedom from want—which, translated into world terms, means economic understandings which will secure to every nation a healthy peacetime life for its inhabitants—everywhere in the world. The fourth is freedom from fear—which, translated into world terms, means a world-wide reduction of armaments to such a point and in such a thorough fashion that no nation will be in a position to commit an act of physical aggression against any neighbor—anywhere in the world. That is no vision of a distant millennium. It is a definite basis for a kind of world attainable in our own time and generation. That kind of world is the very antithesis of the so-called new order of tyranny which the dictators seek to create with the crash of a bomb. ...

... proposed four fundamental freedoms that people "everywhere in the world" ought to enjoy:

Freedom of speech and expression
Freedom of worship
Freedom from want
Freedom from fear

His inclusion of the latter two freedoms went beyond the traditional US Constitutional values protected by its First Amendment, and endorsed a right to economic security and an internationalist view of foreign policy. They also anticipated what would become known ... as the "human security" paradigm in social science and economic development.

I have omitted the identifying information because I think it's quite possible that a lot of people reading here have no idea who made that speech, and I thought they might like to contemplate it on its own, without the picture being coloured by the source.

"Freedom from want" and "freedom from fear" -- human security -- ARE progressive values.

They are what labour organizers and community organizers and peace activists and activists for women's rights and immigrants' rights and GLBT rights and the equality rights of all disadvantaged minorities and the safety of all vulnerable people ... and Occupy ... are about.

Those causes and their militants are progressive.

"Gun rights" and its militants is not.

[oneshooter]

46. A lot of people can't handle it. And oppose it for that reason. n/t

[Name removed]

65. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

69. but not everybody is such a baby

[Starboard Tack]

62. Of course it is possible?

But it doesn't make being ProRKBA a progressive issue. I'm sure there are many progressive Dems who are anti-Gay Marriage or believe in Fetal Rights. Just means their Progressiveness is stunted, but that's how we evolve as a society, by examining our personal fears and prejudices and discarding them in favor of a truly progressive society. A society that depends on an individual's right to tote a gun around is hardly progressive, as opposed to a society that eliminates the need or desire to practice such anti-social behavior.
If every person who strapped a gun on stopped and honestly asked themselves "Am I really contributing to the progress of society by doing this?", I think very few would answer in the affirmative.

[rrneck]

75. "Progressiveness is stunted"

:rofl:

[ileus]

66. You can't really be progressive and anti 2A...you can't mix and match human rights.

[Starboard Tack]

67. What if you believe in the K part but not the B?

I find nothing progressive about the B part. Because a Conservative dominated SCOTUS has interpreted the B to include routine and indiscriminate toting, by those who so desire, does not make it progressive in any way. It nurtures a culture of fear and discord.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

88. You either accept it or you dont.

Whether you want to believe it was purely a conservative decision or not does not matter. Fact is, it is the law of the land and the USSC is definitely not on your side.

That's kinda like saying that just because a woman has the right to choose, why should she have the right to choose an abortion? Just because a liberal dominated Supreme Court decided that in an obviously politically charged 5-4 decision, doesn't mean it actually means anything.

See how that works?

Unanimous or a squeaker, a decision is a decision. You don't get to pick and choose what parts apply.

[Starboard Tack]

103. You are so right. That's why we're having this discussion.

I'm hoping for a SCOTUS that leans liberal again. The right is waiting to overturn Roe vs. Wade.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

106. Neither one will happen

And for the same reason. I'm not even sure you could make a legitimate challenge to either case to force a retrial.

Your only hope is for a repeal of about half of the Bill of Rights. Even repealing the 2nd Amendment doesn't make the right go away. Its still covered by the 9th...

[iverglas]

70. but you sure can know what "human rights" means

and know that a statement like yours:

You can't really be progressive and anti 2A...you can't mix and match human rights.

contains a premise as false as false can be, as false as the statement

You can't really be progressive and anti slavery ... you can't mix and match human rights

would be.

Because ... you pretending that Thing X is a human right doesn't make it a human right any more than me pretending that Thing Y is a human right makes that a human right.

Anyhow, human rights aren't recognized in the USofA, as I understand it, so what's this all about?

[Remmah2]

86. "human rights aren't recognized in the USofA"

Okay, I give. What does this mean? The USA track record may not be perfect but our performance certainly is a lot more progressive than the rest of the world.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

87. If its who I think it is who said that...

the reference is likely to the UN declaration of human rights. That completely non-binding declaration (read "bunch of feel good shit that has no actual binding effect in law or practice) lists a bunch of stuff as a "human right", some of which borders on the insane (such as children having the right to pretty much do as they damn well please regardless of what the parents may wish to teach). The US is neither a signatory nor does it even pretend that the declaration has any validity.

Some countries have signed it, and with predictable results, people who are more concerned with legislative appearance than actual function have latched on to the fact that the US hasn't signed it must indicate the US doesn't care about human rights. Never mind that those who HAVE signed it don't actually pay attention to it, but whatever...

[Remmah2]

90. The UN is a lot of talk w/little action.

They sanction trade boycotts against totalitarian nations burying citizens in mass graves.


Little more than an extension of the League of Nations.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

92. Gotta agree with you there

Some people insist on stupidly thinking the UN actually has relevance and authority.

Personally, I'd like to see them done away with in their entirety. Everything they do seems to turn to shit - or is simply an exercise in mental masturbation.

[iverglas]

95. people who have a clue

and a word to say worth hearing (hey ... maybe that ignore function is actually good for something ...) know that "United Nations" is a collective noun and is thus referred to as "it", not "they".

Lordy.

The United States are a funny old place, aren't they?

[Name removed]

94. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Euromutt]

97. The UDHR doesn't have *any* signatories because it's not legally binding

It was adopted by the UN General Assembly (48 for, 0 against, 8 abstentions), but again, UNGA resolutions aren't legally binding either.

The United States is a party to the International Covenant on Civil and Political Rights, though admittedly with a number of reservations and "clarifications" that some jurists have argue essentially gut the provisions of the treaty. But the fact there is that most of the actual rights set forth in the treaty were already, for all practical purposes, in effect in the U.S. because they're in the Bill of Rights.

[iverglas]

101. "in effect in the U.S. because they're in the Bill of Rights"

Except they aren't, they just look the same.

Even the newcomer expert in all things USAmerican ... and European ... and just everything ... doesn't seem to know what he's talking about here.

[We_Have_A_Problem]

107. Thanks for the education.

Seriously. I never cared enough about it to bother looking up the details.

[iverglas]

100. you think?

Who'd 'a thunk??

Like a dog standing on its hind legs, you done it badly.

My reference was not to anything having anything to do with the UN.

It is about your own legal and political history, about which you are all experts.

Nobody has google, though.

[iverglas]

93. got google?