Good Stuff from Kurt Schlichter
- Thread starter Marshal Jim Duncan
- Start date
"I don’t agree with liberals often, because I’m not an idiot and because I love America,........"
Ouch!
I have a friend who is incredibly intelligent, uber-left wing and from Boston. We generally don't talk politics because she knows she won't change my mind and I won't change hers. What is sad about this current discussion is she thinks the 2nd is outdated because when it was written most people had muskets. She can not comprehend that the second wasn't about the actual "weapon" at the time, but about keeping tyrannical governments in check.
I told her is doubtful we would even be an independent nation had it not been for the propensity of arms, and subsequent efforts to infringe on our sovereignty.
Ouch!
I have a friend who is incredibly intelligent, uber-left wing and from Boston. We generally don't talk politics because she knows she won't change my mind and I won't change hers. What is sad about this current discussion is she thinks the 2nd is outdated because when it was written most people had muskets. She can not comprehend that the second wasn't about the actual "weapon" at the time, but about keeping tyrannical governments in check.
I told her is doubtful we would even be an independent nation had it not been for the propensity of arms, and subsequent efforts to infringe on our sovereignty.
MJD - what if any limits exist to your rights? You have a constitutional right to a switchblade? On an airplane? Bump stocks are OK, but fully auto is to be tightly controlled? Point is "It's my right.." totally diverts the conversation - you have the right to practice your religion, so long as you stay within some reasonable bounds (see Newman v. Piggie Park Enterprises for a good example). This article is a great propaganda piece, but does nothing to advance a conversation on what the reasonable bounds are for gun ownership....
I personally think bump stocks (even though are little more than an enclosure with a spring probably shoukd be prohibited.
Was the purported premise of the article really to advance a conversation? I don't think so. It was to point out once again, the consistent hypocrisy of liberals who claim to "want to have a dialogue" and humorously demonstrate why that is unlikely to happen.
The truth is that most of those clamoring to "do something" want private handgun ownership outlawed completely. That is why those apposed to gun control tend to fight so vociferously against the call for "common sense" gun control.
Last edited:
Are you saying that most gun control opponents are reacting to a fear of what might be rather than a particular proposal? Your comment on bump stocks got cut off, not sure what you meant there.
Bingo! Fortunately, only the left-lemmings are stupid enough to think this an achievable goal; anyone with a modicum of common sense knows it will be the proverbial cold day in hell before it happens.
I’ve asked you before and I’ll ask you again to define specifically what is a right. No one can have a conversation about individual rights until a definition is agreed upon, wouldn’t you agree? So, please define rights. And give a couple of examples of same.
I've explained this to you before - appreciate you engage with a lot of individuals but if this is so important to you write it down:
Rights are based on and derive from a society's customs, laws, statutes or legislative action. As such they are mutable by collective agreement of the society as that society evolves over time. A very small number of natural rights can also be said to exist but even those I would say derive from the most basic forms of human society.
This is a descriptive approach to defining what is a right - meaning I am presenting a practical definition of what a right means in modern society as opposed to a normative view. I have little or no expectation that this definition of rights will actually facilitate the intended discussion.
So David you are totally opposite what our founding fathers believed and what the Declaration of Independence as well as the Constitution is based on.
Really then you do not believe in America at all because the basic premise of America and the founding documents is that the individual matters because they have "God given" or "natural" rights that no man or society can take away.
This actually explains a lot about the positions you take on almost every issue.
The view that society doles out rights is so wrong....For example if a society decided that a race of people or the infirm of mind are not human and do not deserve to live then by what you state above you are OK with that society doing everything they can to make that happen.
Really then you do not believe in America at all because the basic premise of America and the founding documents is that the individual matters because they have "God given" or "natural" rights that no man or society can take away.
This actually explains a lot about the positions you take on almost every issue.
The view that society doles out rights is so wrong....For example if a society decided that a race of people or the infirm of mind are not human and do not deserve to live then by what you state above you are OK with that society doing everything they can to make that happen.
So rights are something granted to an individual by society based on its customs, laws (which are practical extensions of those customs), etc. and are not something with which a person is born, “endowed by his Creator...”? So in a slave society a person has the right to enslave another and he has that right because it has been the custom and the law permits it? A cannibalistic society is not infringing on a person’s rights when it throws him in a pot, boils him and eats him? It’s that society’s custom.
I appreciate that you replied, but, truth be told, you danced around the question. Define “rights.” Give a straight up definition. Rights are “based on customs.” OK, what is a right?
I would love to have a conversation with you about rights (can I have a switchblade knife?), but we’d just be circling around each other until we tack down the definition of what we’re discussing.
Damn, I almost feel sorry for the libs in this thread. They are taking a verbal beating. "Rights are given by custom." Take a lap son.
Curious who you define to be "true" or "pure" Americans?
You got a real defense of Natural Law you care to put forward?
Let's see.... I posit that rights are derived from the social contract and you start to promote slavery. Will add that to your defense of drunk drivers. Carry on with the deflection, don't let me stop you...
As much as I like you (and for some reason I like you a lot) sometimes you can be so obtuse! From my earlier response you gathered that I promoted slavery. And I had earlier defended drunk drivers. Really? That’s your takeaway from our conversation? Nice deflection! I’ll ask again - I’m asking politely! - please provide a definition of rights. What do you think a right is? A definition, not a circumvention. I for one would really like to know your definition of rights.
The last post was a cheap shot, mostly a reaction to another poster. Will further articulate when at a real keyboard... On a Home Depot run.
Trust me when I say I don't need a reference to Rand on this topic.... Might be helpful for others ITT though.
OK, I understand. You seemed to imply there are no articulated defenses of the notion of natural rights. I thought you might want a quick, condensed version. If you find Rand objectionable for some reason you can always read Adam Smith (Wealth of Nations, Theory of Moral Sentiments), or John Locke’s Second Treatise, or Acton’s Essays On Freedom and Power. I’ll be happy to lead you to other defenses of natural rights if you want.
What I was asking was which one was being cited. Rand, Smith et al v. Locke for instance - very different definitions/derivations of Natural Law and Natural Rights. @xplor58 - you should do a bit of digging on this as it relates to the founders.
If my posts have come across as totally denying some form of Natural Right(s) then I have erred in my posting, what I have meant to convey is that they are redefined within the context of the social contract. Rand was dead wrong IMO when she denied that humans are social creatures. This is the distinction I was attempting to draw between the normative and the descriptive.
To bring it back to the OP - the idea that rights are categorical is on the face of it untrue. Your property rights do not entitle you to drive drunk in our society (I know that bothers you @Ponca Dan). Your right to bear arms are limited in various ways (lethality, or form of armament), your rights are unilaterally rescinded if you commit some crimes or are deemed by society to be incapable of making rational decisions. Like or not, this is descriptively how rights work in our society and our societies form of government. Within that context, bump stocks can and IMO should be found to have extended beyond a reasonable definition of the right to bear arms (as are uranium tipped projectiles, surface to air missiles, and chemical weapons) and should be regulated post haste. Further, we should provide some form of purchase reporting so we can turn machine learning loose on the data to identify who might about to trip a circuit and start killing people.
Last edited:
Bump stocks should be banned. As a civilian, I can't buy a machine gun (post 1986). I shouldn't be able to buy something that causes a semiautomatic rifle to emulate one either.
There's no use that can be argued to legitimize their existence. I was shocked the Slide Fire was OK'd. In my line of work we've been saying for years that someone would use them just as the Vegas shooter did.
You can even put one on a Saiga 12 gauge shotgun and essentially create a full auto 12 gauge. Ridiculous. Nightmare for law enforcement. I feel so strongly against those devices I'd be good if the feds made them illegal to own without any grandfather clause. Have a program to buy them back from owners for full retail price and get those things off the street.
OK, I’m beating a dead horse. Your answers are descriptions, not a definition. I get it. Defining rights is difficult when you adopt Rousseau’s Social Contract philosophy. I’ll drop it. You can have the last word if you want it. (For the life of me I don’t know why but I still like you!).
