Finnding the Right Tone, the Right Discussion, and the Right Answers... Is It Even Possible?
by: Les Carpenter
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
I was going to do a wrap up post on the carnage that occurred in Aurora Colorado last Friday. I was hoping to write something that might give way to maybe finding some rational and common ground for productive discussion. However, after seeing the obvious rancor and "it's our way or no way" comments from those of both views on firearms control, as well as the often groundless accusations being hurled back and forth I decided why bother.
Our best hope really is to follow a Thomas Jefferson quote which says in part "Fix reason firmly in its seat...". I'm not holding out any chance this will happen and therefore I can find no reason to continue a discussion of the issue here. So I am posting a couple of links where the discussion has been on going and likely will continue for some time. My guess of course is the discussion will end in stalemate with the proponents of both views declaring victory while in fact nothing at all will have been accomplished.
Western Hero and Progressive Eruptions argue the firearm control issue back and forth relatively effectively. For those who have not visited these sites it's worth the time to do so and poke around awhile. Which site has reason most firmly fixed in its seat. Or perhaps more to the point is there a more rational way? And if so should it not be the people's responsibility to work it out?
Side note, be sure to check this out.
Via: Memeorandum
Rational Nation USA
Liberty -vs- Tyranny
 |
| Two Men Contemplating the Moon |
I was going to do a wrap up post on the carnage that occurred in Aurora Colorado last Friday. I was hoping to write something that might give way to maybe finding some rational and common ground for productive discussion. However, after seeing the obvious rancor and "it's our way or no way" comments from those of both views on firearms control, as well as the often groundless accusations being hurled back and forth I decided why bother.
Our best hope really is to follow a Thomas Jefferson quote which says in part "Fix reason firmly in its seat...". I'm not holding out any chance this will happen and therefore I can find no reason to continue a discussion of the issue here. So I am posting a couple of links where the discussion has been on going and likely will continue for some time. My guess of course is the discussion will end in stalemate with the proponents of both views declaring victory while in fact nothing at all will have been accomplished.
Western Hero and Progressive Eruptions argue the firearm control issue back and forth relatively effectively. For those who have not visited these sites it's worth the time to do so and poke around awhile. Which site has reason most firmly fixed in its seat. Or perhaps more to the point is there a more rational way? And if so should it not be the people's responsibility to work it out?
Side note, be sure to check this out.
Via: Memeorandum
I guess you'll consider me one of the trouble makers, then, for I don't believe there IS any "reasonable compromise" on the Second Amendment, or the First Amendment, OR the........
ReplyDeleteNo, not a trouble maker, just unyielding and rigid.
DeleteI stand by both the spirit and the intent of the 1'st and 2'nd amendments, as well as the other eight in the bill of rights.
It would be quite interesting if we could here from say George Washington, Ben Franklin, Thomas Jefferson, James Madison just to name a few and know what they would say today if they were hear.
They would say, why the hell are we engaging in empire and mercantilism? Why are we taxing everything we purchase and not calling it taxes? To pay the difference?
DeleteOh, and here's another one I'm sure our founders would wonder, why the hell are we becoming more and more like Europe in our REGRESSIVE taxation? Like the VAT?
Why aren't we patriotic enough any more to raise the funds to make America that "shining city on a hill?"
Since when does any one entirely alone make their own fate, ever?
You conservatives, libertarians, objectivists, and religious right people, all have one argument that we on the other many sides can not accept:
You believe you are thing entirely unto your own.
You're not.
You have more living things in and on your body than you have cells.
You do not choose to whom you're born...
Or where you're raised...
Who your second grade math teacher happens to be...
You are a product of your environment; biologically, genetically, socially, personally.
Until you guys understand that cooperation makes for a better human life, because cooperation is ballast and impetus to and for competition (great article on sciam this month!), we will be at loggerheads.
http://www.scientificamerican.com/article.cfm?id=why-we-help-evolution-cooperation
LES. You need to read this.
JMJ
We are who we are, we are who we choose to be, we determine through our own mind what decisions to make that results in the results those decision render unto us.
DeleteNow, stop your blathering will ya?
1) Of course you don't choose who you're born to, SO WHAT?
2) Of course you have teachers that help you develop INDEPENDENT thinking skills as you grow, key word INDEPENDENT. All GOOD teachers do this.
3) Your environment is your OYSTER, it is there for YOU do harvest, IF you choose to do so. Or, you can WHINE insistently. And you cab continually BLAME every thing on the failure of someone, or something other than looking at yourself first.
Now jmj go to your land of rainbows and unicorns. Say high to your idol BHO when arrive there.
jmj, I forgot to ad that of course you have mentors in business as well to help if you're smart enough to learn from their experience. So what then? Yup, you build upon the experience of others to further yourself by RISING to whatever your desires, interests, drive, and YOUR ability take you.
DeleteNow I understand Jersey's wildly unhinged comments. They spring from a writhing nest of false premises and sour assumptions about those he disagrees with.
ReplyDeleteSadly Les, this probably cannot be debated civilly. Too emotional, and I readily admit to being an advocate. The right to keep and bear arms is a fundamental one, it is a corollary to the right to life, liberty and property.
Probably right Silver.
DeleteI admit to advocating the right to keep and bears arms as well, having done so for a time in my life. My soon to be 80 year old father still does, although he hasn't fired one for probably 15 years or so.
The right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness existed long before firearms and certainly long before the second amendment, although I agree philosophically the right to bear arms for the purpose of self defense and the safeguarding of the big three fundamental rights is indeed a corollary to the big three fundamental rights.
Regulation of rights has been common even in our republic almost since the beginning. Public welfare in public places is a proper concern of governments, particularly those elected and put into place by the people.
Therefore the regulation of firearms can be argued as a proper role of government in its role of providing protection for the general population against the improper use of firearms. It can also be argued that private ownership of automatic and semi automatic weapons, designed for use in combat are not necessary to preserve "the right to bear arms" for the purpose of hunting, target practice, or for the purpose of defending your home. These types of weapons with 100 round drums are not essential to preserving the corollary right to the right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness.
"Fix reason firmly in its seat and question everything, even the existence of God." Thomas Jefferson.
jersey,
ReplyDeletei'll tell you what. if you want to take credit for someone else's success i'll believe that you are sincere when you start accepting responsibility for someone else's failures instead of blaming everyone else.
as for cooperation, i'll believe you are sincere when you show me a definition of that word that allows the use of "force" to be a part of the definition. until you can it is not cooperation you seek but "coersion". and that is something i will never approve of nor will i willingly be a part of.
Well, guys, you can see why it's so heard to have a civil debate. You conservatives just can't be civil.
ReplyDeleteYou did not address anything I meant at all.
And then Les, while ignoring reality just like his God Ayn Rand, ironically says I should my "land of rainbows and unicorns.
"Of course you don't choose who you're born to, SO WHAT?"
My point there really completely eludes you? Really???
"2) Of course you have teachers that help you develop INDEPENDENT thinking skills as you grow, key word INDEPENDENT. All GOOD teachers do this."
No such a thing, Les. No one thinks in a vacuum of his own mind. We are even in our own minds, interdependent thinkers.
"3) Your environment is your OYSTER, it is there for YOU do harvest, IF you choose to do so. Or, you can WHINE insistently. And you cab continually BLAME every thing on the failure of someone, or something other than looking at yourself first."
That's all well and fine, but as usual, completely dismissive of reality.
JMJ
jmj, Unlike you I'll be magnanimous. You call everyone who disagrees with you stupid. Well, I could call you an idiot but I won't, because I believe you are actually smart, although perhaps stunted in you growth in certain ways.
Delete1) I do not read minds jmj, and your points were responded to. You just didn't like the response.
2) Ayn Ran is not my God nor anyone's God. She was brilliant, thought outside the box, and certainly above your head.
3) All good teachers in fact do teach students to think independently. They encourage thinking, asking questions, researching, and at the end of the day drawing their own conclusions based on what their mind reasons from the data they uncovered. When new reasoned data surfaces arrived at by another only a fool would not consider it.
4) Only those who choose to be DISMISSIVE of the opportunities the world presents them are dismissing reality in their hope for the rainbows and unicorns of government dependency.
5) Given all the time you have been coming here I would have thought you would have finally got that I'm really an independent thinker, free from the dogma of democratic, republican, liberal, or conservative ideology. I am who I am and whenever you don't agree as I said I'm stupid, but when you have agreed I've right on. That's fine. Fact is I disagree with conservatives as often as I disagree with liberal. Ask The Griper, or Gorges. Call me an active mind, call be a ball buster, call me one who likes to stir up the waters. That would be fair, and I do it for a purpose, primarily because I learn in the process. And perhaps unlike you my mind in fact changes.
This post was about what it was about. Suggesting there is in fact a workable compromise between the extreme anti firearms nuts who believe no one except the police and military should have firearms and the extreme pro firearms nuts that believe a person should have the right to every firearm and largest magazines and drums available if they want. But Guessed you missed that huh?
I've often maintained the ideologues of the left and the ideologues of the right will ultimately destroy this country. Glad I won't be around to witness it jmj, you might be but you will never understand why it happened... if it does.
Just remember jmj, every coin has two sides. That comment is meant for all, the edge of the coin and area for compromise is very slim. Think about it guys, the nation's future destiny depends on the edge. Back in the day I believe the founding fathers understood this.
Can't be civil? Go back and look at your loony rant. It's a platoon of strawmen. We're anti-cooperation? I believe I am a "thing unto my own?"
ReplyDeleteWhere in the hell do you get such ideas? You start with such an inaccurate and uncharitable view of me that you poison the well right off the bat.
You want to talk about the founders? They would be appalled to see the federal government gobbling nearly a quarter of every dollar in this country, and they would be horrified at bureaucratic brigades unleashed upon hardworking people.
And finally, you exhibit the fatal conceit of all statist progressives: you think it's government that makes America a shining city on the hill. Wrong. It is the people.
Here's the background on that fellow who envisioned "the city on the hill:"
ReplyDelete"Although Winthrop was a respected political figure, his attitude toward governance was somewhat authoritarian: he resisted attempts to widen voting and other civil rights beyond a narrow class of religiously approved individuals, opposed attempts to codify a body of laws that the colonial magistrates would be bound by, and also opposed unconstrained democracy, calling it "the meanest and worst of all forms of government".
The authoritarian and religiously conservative nature of Massachusetts rule was influential in the formation of neighboring colonies, which were in some instances formed by individuals and groups opposed to the rule of the Massachusetts elders."
"... unconstrained democracy, calling it "the meanest and worst of all forms of government".
DeleteI do believe Shaw you understand that unrestrained democracy would in fact be exactly as the phrase in quotes claims it would be.
Which is precisely why our founding fathers gave us a democratic republic governed by the rule of law.
By the way, thanks for posting your comment. It is indeed instructional.
DeleteThe government is of, by, and for the people. That's the whole idea, Silver.
ReplyDeleteAll this nonsense about "statism" and "force" and "coercion" is just that - nonsense. Silly, over-the-top, mis-representative, hyperbolic, byperpartisan nonsense.
JMJ
jmj, I'm not sure you understand so please read my response to Shaw's comment who I believe does understand.
DeleteIt's funny, too, Shaw, that the "city on the hill" thing is one of the oldest expressions in the civilized world about the civilized world - Jericho. And who with what made Jericho? Civil, social, cooperative people.
ReplyDeleteIt seems a lot of people these days really just can't grasp the complexity of civil society. It's just too much effort/burden/responsibility/bother/___ (whatever would annoy a lazy person) to them.
JMJ
What is so interesting is that many, and you fit this bill jmj as evidenced by your recent and past statements, believe that rights inherently belong to the STATE
DeleteAs opposed to understanding, as the founding fathers and other enlightened thinkers of the Age of Reason and the Enlightenment did, that rights are inherent in each individual and only by the individuals (within a society) granting rights to the state does the state have any rights at all.
Indeed jmj I understand the concept of rights and the complexities of civil society by far better than you realize. As well, I understand both better than you do, again as evidenced by recent as well as past statements you've made here.
I now understand what it is that allows you to accept and perhaps even encourage absolute rule by the state (tyranny). Something that I could never accept, nor would I ever accept it.
I will fight for liberty. You will accept any promise for security rather than risk the dangers inherent in liberty. So be it.
Good for you as it makes you happy.
I've never considered myself even remotely hostile to gun rights. But even I can't figure out why anybody would ever need an AK-47, cop-killer bullets, or a hundred bullet clip....And this whole gun-show loophole is also insane.
ReplyDeleteConvince the real leftist loonies to think the same way as you do Will. If ya had 100 lifetimes you wouldn't be able to accomplish it.
Delete