posted on December 19, 2000 12:11:54 AM new
Just a little note networker. You may already know this, but if not it will be of interest to you. There was an excellant Wall Street Journal article a few years ago. I even clipped it and have it here somewhere in my papers. They very nicely documented that the origin of the gun control laws was post civil war. People were in a hysteria about all the freed blacks and what a problem and terror they were going to be, and greatly desired to see that they not be allowed to run around armed like white folk. The funny thing is that after the power to restrict the right to carry is in place it was real easy to say well let's also deny these Irish immigrants we have here in town and you know that Andrew family has a bunch of trouble makers and they are poor so they can't make much fuss about it, and, and, and...... Where I live you can get a CCW permit if you have LOTS of money, are from a cops family, or are a politician like a judge or a big executive in county government. All others need not apply. This
is all in the face of the STATE Constitution where I live which unlike the Federal constitution very specifically preserves the right of a citizen to keep weapons for the protection of his person AND the state, in that order.(Article I Section 6) It does not bother them at all to have such conflicts without amending the constitution. That is how much either Constitution - State or Federal is valued by the powers that be.
I don't see this huge respect you would like to see. Instead I see Congress passing retroactive laws and taxes, what is the expression? Post ex facto? Clearly unconstitutional. They pass laws like OSHA and then exempt themselves from that law. Where is equal protection?
[ edited by gravid on Dec 19, 2000 12:20 AM ]
posted on December 19, 2000 02:42:51 AM new
The Civil War - When I first moved to Georgia from NYC, in the '70's, the big news here was that a University of Georgia professor had written a book about "The Civil War." It wasn't the subject matter that was noteworthy, there were no new insights, it was that he had referred to it as "The Civil War." For more than 100 years, any textbook you'd read here called it "The War Between the States." (And the ladies called it, and still call it "The War of Northern Aggression," or, for the more delicate, "The Recent Unpleasantness.)
That the Civil war wasn't about slavery, really, but about economic differences and state sovereignty is Southern propoganda. It was all about slavery. The economics of slavery and the right of states to legislate the right to own slaves.
posted on December 19, 2000 05:41:52 AM new
No, Donny, the Civil War was caused by the Republican Party and it's new president. Had Lincoln merely ordered the removal of federal troops from Ft. Sumner the whole thing very well might not have happened. Had he not been so obstinate it is very likely that a compromise would have been found.
posted on December 19, 2000 06:21:54 AM new
Networker67,
Interesting that you say you haven't time to waste trying to convince me of something and then spend a great portion of that post speaking to others about what I get and don't get.
What statements have I made that led you to the conclusion that I want my rights to take precedence over someone else's and on the basis of some sense that my right has a deeper moral footing than the right of the other?
Which right have I claimed in this discussion as mine and superior to someone else's?
I imagine it is fruitless but I will again ask you...
When the exercise of one right encroaches on another right, which right prevails?
By principle are not the rights equal? Do you not have a case of the irrestible force meeting the immovable object? And by what mechanism is the "conflict" ultimately resolved?
You seem to be saying that "true" Americans are those who respect the rights of others. What I am asking you is how two parties in conflict over the exercise of their rights resolve that conflict. In other words when that irrestible force meets that immovable object what happens next?
posted on December 19, 2000 08:28:33 AM new
"No, Donny, the Civil War was caused by the Republican Party and it's new president. Had Lincoln merely ordered the removal of federal troops from Ft. Sumner the whole thing very well might not have happened. Had he not been so obstinate it is very likely that a compromise would have been found."
The years before the civil war were a tightrope of compromise, as new states were formed. The Republican party had an anti-slavery platform. The Southern states declared, before the election, that if the Republican candidate, Lincoln, won, they would secede. He did, and they did.
posted on December 19, 2000 09:59:36 AM newhardoutfit - Great gif.
gravid - First off I used guns to avoid using abortion or the one I got forced to use below. I am a proud gun owner as a matter of fact. And I live in Chicago, I am sure you know about our ban on new handgun registrations. That ban has survived three Constitutional Challenges. Now the right of Government to levy taxes is covered under the 16th Amendment. And like a large part of the Constitution it uses eloquent but vague words. Now OSHA is one of those things that is regulation. And let's just accept the fact unreglated business would have you working from sun up to sun down for 3 hots and a shack if they could get away with it. And since our laws were founded by We The People not We The People in Business, I accept those. A business doesn't get equal protection because it is an entity owned by a person but it is not a person. A lot of what you spoke about shifts us to the need of We The People to keep tabs on what They The Government is doing.
donny - It might just as well be Southern Propaganda. But it serves another useful purpose. And that useful purpose is the subject of its own thread. Maybe just maybe we will be able to have an intelligent discussion on that subject one day here at The Round Table. But I don't think so. Besides The North has its own propaganda campaign going on about the war too. But I will say this both propaganda campaigns in a way serve the same purpose.
krs - Compromise wouldn't have been found the Taney Supreme Court assured that. Besides everything in history has a time and a place. Let's also remember that the rest of the civilized world had already gotten rid of slavery. With slavery America would have never been accepted on the World Scene. And as far as removing Federal Troops from a Federal Fort, I see no military logic in that. I will assume by that Statement you think they just wanted the Fort to have a place for the ladies social on Saturday. Back to that compromise, States were already voting to succeed so they left the bargining table. Which posed the first constitutional question could a State leave the Union? The rest is history because after four years of conflict instead of answering could a State leave the Union. America instead removed the reason they wanted to go in the first place.
code What part of No Right Prevails because we both should be responsible enough to respect that we both exerted our Rights are you finding so difficult to grasp. You still seem stuck that someone has to prevail, you seem stuck that there has to be a clear winner and clear loser. You are stuck that someone has to ultimately lose a right for harmony to exist. This isn't an election where we vote which exertion of freedom is right.
A real American understands that if everybody has so much freedom, everybody has to be responsible in how they exert those freedoms. In being responsible they also have to respect that the next guy has just as much freedom as they do. That requires people accept that your freedom is your freedom as long as we both respect one another's freedom. I say for the last time, exert your freedom to your hearts content, but don't think you have the freedom to stop another from exerting theirs. You only have the freedom to protest it not the freedom to stop it. Conflict prevails when oneside or the other attaches some higher than thou moral reason to why their freedom should prevail over the other.
I bet after that you still can't see that first you have to accept that the other guy has the freedom to reject your higher than thou moral argument that you are right. In fact he has the freedom to inject his own higher than thou moral argument. But neither side has the freedom to stop the other, they only have the freedom to protest the other. One last example for you this one should make things crystal clear for you.
The KKK from time to time marches and has assemblies to spread their IMHO warped views and agenda. When they march other groups get together to protest their marching. What you have two groups marching, one is marching to spread IMHO warped views, the other is marching to protest those warped views. As long as neither side adopts the position that they should stop the other. You have two protests and everybody else just picks a side. Problems ensue when one decides to stop the other for whatever reason. As we all know I do not agree with the KKK's views but I won't lift one finger to stop them from expressing them. Because they have that freedom, I have the freedom to protest those views but not stop them from spreading them. They march to spread warped views, I protest the march to say those views are warped. We both exerted our freedom, no one got hurt, and both sides got heard by somebody, and we all made the evening news.
I hope that puts this to rest with you. Unless of course you have a premise why one side has to be right over the other in that example. On a humorous note I hope this wasn't your beartrap because pretending not to see leads me to the brick wall analogy.
posted on December 19, 2000 10:22:36 AM new
Networker67,
You still sidestep the answer to my question.
Your example of one group marching or gathering to exercise their rights of freedom of speech and assembly being opposed by another group doing the same thing is not a valid example of one right encroaching on another right.
As you mentioned abortion consider this:
Which right prevails? The mother's right to control her own body or the fetus's right to life?
posted on December 19, 2000 10:39:48 AM new
code-since you are not getting the response you want, i thought i would put my 2 cents in. your question about which right prevails can be answered in different ways based on how one defines "prevails". the law, which is of course subject to change, would cause the "right" of the fetus to prevail if the law prohibited abortion and the mother honored the law. if the mother sought an "illegal" abortion she would "prevail" despite the law. how about the old "yelling 'fire' in a crowded theater question? one's right to freedom of speech is superseded by the right of those present to enjoy the movie without being harrassed and panicked. what do you think?
posted on December 19, 2000 10:39:57 AM new
An 'American' is someone who can trace his ancestry back to pre-Columbian times (as residents of North America). The rest of us are just Claim Jumping Europeans, Wannagohome Africans, or Industrious Asians. Oh, and a few Palpitating Polynesians.
Beverly
posted on December 19, 2000 10:41:56 AM newA real American understands that if everybody has so much freedom, everybody has to be responsible in how they exert those freedoms. In being responsible they also have to respect that the next guy has just as much freedom as they do. That requires people accept that your freedom is your freedom as long as we both respect one another's freedom. I say for the last time, exert your freedom to your hearts content, but don't think you have the freedom to stop another from exerting theirs. You only have the freedom to protest it not the freedom to stop it. Conflict prevails when oneside or the other attaches some higher than thou moral reason to why their freedom should prevail over the other.
It's not "freedoms," it's rights. It's not "exerting freedoms," it's exercising rights. "Freedoms" are vested in "rights," and "rights" are vested in law. For example, they are not "civil freedoms," they are "civil rights," and their abridgement isn't an encroachment, it's a violation.
Another thing bothers me: My rights don't exist at my neighbor's discretion. They're MINE, regardless of mood, education, or state of enlightenment. I'm troubled when I read things like "That requires people accept that your freedom is your freedom as long as we both respect one another's freedom," assuming, as above, that the word "freedoms" is being used synonymously with "rights." Even if someone disrespects my rights, I am not entitled to disrespect theirs.
Or maybe I just can't handle a discussion of the social contract when it's all tied up in the stars and bars.
posted on December 19, 2000 10:52:40 AM new
The concept of North America and the country (not the land mass) was created by those "claim jumpers." The former residents were not Americans, native or otherwise. And, to be fair, the concept of property possession was alien to the many of the peoples who used the lands before we arrived, making the concept of "claims" shaky.
posted on December 19, 2000 11:12:21 AM new
Hello Stusi,
I mean the word prevail in the sense that the one of the conflicting rights is understood by the general public ("We the People" so to speak) to take precedence over the other.
To use the fire in the theatre example does the right to free speech (yelling "fire" just for the hell of it) take precedence over the safety (life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness) of the theatre goers?
Or perhaps better yet, does one have the right to harangue a crowd about the ills visited on society by the homeless, shiftless bums who live off the public dole and to suggest that society would be better off without these miserable leeches. On radio? On television. In a letter to the letter of the paper? Outside a shelter or a soup kitchen or a meeting place for day laborers?
You see, I reject Networker's premise that morality has no role in determination or in the exercise of our rights.
posted on December 19, 2000 11:20:26 AM new
code - If that didn't do it for you well you refuse to see the light. Well let's examine those warped views for one minute.
First off White Supremacy is in direct violation of the Constitution under the 13th and 14th Amendments. It is in violation of the preamble of the same Constitution. Some of the atrocities of those views violate Civil Liberties, and more common laws such as murder, destruction of property, and a few others. So those views of themselves is an encroachment onto the rights of others. Because it promotes that others shouldn't have those rights or freedoms in the firs place. Obviously you overlooked the FACT that having those views isn't illegal, carrying out those views however is. So it was a good example especially when you look at the fact that technically just having those views is Unconstitutional. Not to mention very UNAMERICAN, but in America we beleive so strongly in freedoms that we even will accept the expression of ideals that of themselves violate the Constiution. Because we beleive you have the freedom to think that way, even though we make sure you don't have the legal right to act that way.
I don't discuss abortion because too many holier than thou moral arguments cloud logic and defy sound reasoning. Heck some of them even defy the known laws of Human Biology. Many center on the doctrines of a Church which in America is a no go. And so many other things of people trying to force their holier than thou moral premises on people.
posted on December 19, 2000 11:29:10 AM new
networker67 and codasaurus,
It's apparent that you two have some sort of personal conflict. If either of you has issues with the posts of the other, please use the ignore feature or take it to email.
posted on December 19, 2000 11:40:10 AM new
code-morality has a role in determining our rights in the sense that those who make the laws do so quite often with their own particular set of morals to guide them. our individual morals, or lack of same, affect our exercising of our rights. we may have rights by law that we choose not to exercise because our morals stop us from doing so. is this what you were talking about?
posted on December 19, 2000 12:24:30 PM new
codasaurus - Hate to say this but CHECKMATE.
You said to stusi and I quote.
You see, I reject Networker's premise that morality has no role in determination or in the exercise of our rights.
Well I will assume that by now you have read the counter with the KKK example. And the fact that many of those views violate principles set forth in our Constitution. So if morality plays such a tremendous role in the exercise of our rights. Why would an otherwise moral society allow anyone to openly hold views and carry out an agenda to support views that violate basic principles of that society.
Because it isn't about morality its about basic principles of freedom as set forth in the Constitution. We have laws and live by principles that place the kkk's doctrine compeltely outside of the law. However we also have other principles that say although we have set in law that all men are equal, no race, creed, or national origin is above another, these groups under our principles of free speech, free press, and right of assembly have the right to hold views counter to the law itself. And as long as they only talk about it, print books about it and march to show off those ugly robes. We will follow our principles that say they can do that. Now if they try to enact those principles and carry out that agenda well time to lock em up. Like those guys in Texas.
America is the only country on this great planet where you can talk about, write about, and assemble about things that are in violation of the law. As long as you are just talking, writing, and assemblying. We hold principles that you can do that. A moral society working on a set moral code would do just like Germany rule the thing illegal and lock folks up for participating. We operate on principles not morals. ALWAYS HAVE AND ALWAYS WILL BECAUSE MORALS CHANGE LIKE THE WEATHER.
To further a Moral Society wouldn't have dropped an Atomic Bomb, it would have invaded instead.
A society operating from principles knows it is better to save the lives of your own if you have the ability too.
But if you want to exercise your freedom from a moral sense by all means exercise them from morals. I feel that as long as you do it in a responsible manner and respect my right to reject those holier than thou morals you can exert your freedom anyway you want to. Besides you also have the freedom to reject what you please. Which places this back to the brick wall.
That should about wrap this up, So moderator feel free to lock the thread. He has stated his rejection and he has the freedom to reject what he pleases I see nothing else to discuss.
posted on December 19, 2000 02:49:52 PM new
My understanding is that it is now illegal to publish books which describe how to make bombs and certain other destructive devices so there is a start at denying free expression. I will try to find the reference for that.
Paladin Press indicated it was Senate Bill S606 which caused them to stop offering any instruction books involving explosives.
They were also held liable for the use of information from one of their books used in the commition of a murder in Rice vs Paladin Press in the Fourth Circuit Court of appeals.
The Supreme Court refused to hear the case.
[ edited by gravid on Dec 19, 2000 03:06 PM ]
posted on December 19, 2000 04:02:51 PM new
krs - The Florida vote thing is what you get when people inject some higher moral calling into the system. Notice how according to Justice Scalia and I quote,
"The counting of vote that are questionable legality does in my view threaten irreparable harm to [Bush} and to the country, by casting a cloud upon what he claims to be the legitimacy of his election"
Wow bush in no legal argument never said those votes were illegal.
mrpotatoehead - Like I said nothing moral about it was a basic principle call. In war you kill and destroy the other guy in a manner that calls for the lowest casaulty count to your forces. However a man driven by morals in a country with the same wouldn't have dropped the bomb period.
America doesn't operate from some higher moral calling. We operate from basic principles of freedom that belong to all. Which is why our most heated debates come from areas where someone has injected a moral calling.
Abortion, Gun Control, The two most controversal subjects in America. Both argued on at least one side by people with some proported moral calling. Those morals tend to cloud rational thinking which is why the founding fathers constructed the Constitution moral free. Heck they even injected a means to make sure that a very large majority of folks is needed to change it. What I call the Right Wing insanity control and left wing pushing the envelope too far prevention clause of the Constitution. Without it we would really have been in a pickle on more than one occasion.
