Enlightening FBI Gun statistics from our good friends at JPFO

[BehindBlueI's]

Seriously, do any of you believe that there are more "accidental" firearms deaths than from defensive shootings?

Deaths? No. Injuries? Yes. I don't need FBI stats for that, I kept track for our county. People accidentally shoot themselves or others resulting in injury or death much more often than they shoot a bad guy resulting in injury or death. Luckily, the injuries tend to be relatively minor as they strongly trend toward being in the extremities. Shooting your off hand is embarrassing and painful, but not fatal.

 

[Ingomike]

I reject out of hand the core of libertarianism. It trusts that most will have a moral compass, and that`s just not rooted in reality. The reason for laws is that there have to be restraints on conduct to benefit society, because in the libertarian, yes, pretty much anything DOES go. We`ll just sharply disagree.

Your "conduct restraints" look like constitutional violations to me...

 

[DoggyDaddy]

The reason for laws is that there have to be restraints on conduct to benefit society

I'm sorry Greg, but think about this and apply it to your view of the 2A. I'm not sure that you would agree with yourself. My guess is that it's the difference in the idea of "to benefit society", and what that means.

You, and most of us on here believe (and rightfully so) that the 2A as written "benefits society". The other side does not share that belief. That's where the laws that infringe on the 2A came/come from.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Shooting your off hand is embarrassing and painful, but not fatal.

But it would make a great youtube video!

 

[Lex Concord]

I reject out of hand the core of libertarianism. It trusts that most will have a moral compass, and that`s just not rooted in reality. The reason for laws is that there have to be restraints on conduct to benefit society, because in the libertarian, yes, pretty much anything DOES go. We`ll just sharply disagree.

The core of libertarianism doesn't address morality, except to put it outside the valid scope of state power. I believe this is where it belongs.

Excepting actions that cause harm to the person or property of another, if you believe the state should be the arbiter and enforcer of what is moral, then we absolutely will disagree.

 

[Lex Concord]

.

 

[BehindBlueI's]

But it would make a great youtube video!

Tex Grebner, give DoggyDaddy his account back. ;D

 

[gregr]

The core of libertarianism doesn't address morality, except to put it outside the valid scope of state power. I believe this is where it belongs.

Excepting actions that cause harm to the person or property of another, if you believe the state should be the arbiter and enforcer of what is moral, then we absolutely will disagree.

Your position falls flat based on what the Founders intended:


"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams

 

[Ingomike]

Your position falls flat based on what the Founders intended:


"We have no government armed in power capable of contending with human passions unbridled by morality and religion. Our Constitution was made only for a religious and moral people. It is wholly inadequate for the government of any other." John Adams

A very bad interpretation on your part. Yes the founders recognized the need for a religious and moral people, but did not intend for government to enforce it. This is why in the past 70 years the communists have been working to eliminate religion...

 

[gregr]

A very bad interpretation on your part. Yes the founders recognized the need for a religious and moral people, but did not intend for government to enforce it. This is why in the past 70 years the communists have been working to eliminate religion...

It`s not an interpretation at all. The Founders didn`t just pray before they began The People`s work, the Continental Congress held full blown worship services. The Ten Commandments are etched into the wall where the Supreme Court presides. They did not intend government to "enforce it", because they never envisioned a citizenry that was so lawless and immoral. But they DID understand the need for law and order, and they knew that biblically and morally government has the right and the duty to create and enforce laws for the good of the Republic. It`s ridiculous to imply that laws infringe upon your rights, because you simply don`t have the right to engage in certain activities. Getting stoned just is not constitutionally protected. Being a criminal and a public nuisance isn`t a right either.

 

[KLB]

It`s not an interpretation at all. The Founders didn`t just pray before they began The People`s work, the Continental Congress held full blown worship services. The Ten Commandments are etched into the wall where the Supreme Court presides. They did not intend government to "enforce it", because they never envisioned a citizenry that was so lawless and immoral. But they DID understand the need for law and order, and they knew that biblically and morally government has the right and the duty to create and enforce laws for the good of the Republic. It`s ridiculous to imply that laws infringe upon your rights, because you simply don`t have the right to engage in certain activities. Getting stoned just is not constitutionally protected. Being a criminal and a public nuisance isn`t a right either.

Are we going with the "There is nothing in the Bill of Rights that protects it" argument?

 

[Ingomike]

It`s ridiculous to imply that laws infringe upon your rights, because you simply don`t have the right to engage in certain activities. Getting stoned just is not constitutionally protected

They do infringe and yes it is a right, as proven by our forefathers that felt the need to change the constitution to infringe on the right to drink alcoholic beverages.

So besides making drugs illegal what other infringements would you countenance for your moral utopian law and order?

 

[gregr]

They do infringe and yes it is a right, as proven by our forefathers that felt the need to change the constitution to infringe on the right to drink alcoholic beverages.

So besides making drugs illegal what other infringements would you countenance for your moral utopian law and order?

 

[KLB]

Typical reply for you.

You do realize that the founders would have left something like this to the states. They never would have championed a federal law. They didn't even have a body to enforce any such law then.

 

[Beowulf]

It`s not an interpretation at all. The Founders didn`t just pray before they began The People`s work, the Continental Congress held full blown worship services. The Ten Commandments are etched into the wall where the Supreme Court presides. They did not intend government to "enforce it", because they never envisioned a citizenry that was so lawless and immoral. But they DID understand the need for law and order, and they knew that biblically and morally government has the right and the duty to create and enforce laws for the good of the Republic. It`s ridiculous to imply that laws infringe upon your rights, because you simply don`t have the right to engage in certain activities. Getting stoned just is not constitutionally protected. Being a criminal and a public nuisance isn`t a right either.

You know, reading your responses on this thread, you come across as supporting a theocratic fascist state. I don't know if you realize that is what you are advocating, but it is. It is antithetical to the principles the country was founded under.

I see a lot of references to the supposed faith of the founding fathers, but a good chunk of them were Deists, heavily influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. They were not fundamentalists in their religious views.

Granted, a chunk of them supported slavery too, so I suppose we really shouldn't be focusing much on what they believed was moral either way (though even the among the ones that supported slavery, like Jefferson, they clearly knew it was wrong, based on their writings and actions later in their lives... even if they were too cowardly to do anything about it when they had a chance).

 

[gregr]

You know, reading your responses on this thread, you come across as supporting a theocratic fascist state. I don't know if you realize that is what you are advocating, but it is. It is antithetical to the principles the country was founded under.

I see a lot of references to the supposed faith of the founding fathers, but a good chunk of them were Deists, heavily influenced by the philosophy of the Enlightenment. They were not fundamentalists in their religious views.

Granted, a chunk of them supported slavery too, so I suppose we really shouldn't be focusing much on what they believed was moral either way (though even the among the ones that supported slavery, like Jefferson, they clearly knew it was wrong, based on their writings and actions later in their lives... even if they were too cowardly to do anything about it when they had a chance).

That`s a common liberal spin, that the Founders were deists. They came from the very same populous that the rest of the colonists came from, and they were solidly Christian men and women. They came to, and settled this land primarily for religious freedom. Their faith was very important to them. And all I`ve said or implied here is that the Founders clearly expected the citizens of the new Republic to always be the same men and women with character, ethics, and a faith in God that they saw when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution/Bill of Rights. They said that these Natural Rights come from our Creator; Capital "C", expressly implying Almighty-God. They reference God in many of their writing, and most of the Founding Documents.

Spin however you wish the views of the Founders, as well as my perspective, feel free to continue to put words in my mouth. Not of that spinning changes the fact that government has an ethical and moral obligation to craft certain laws to restrain illicit and immoral behavior by The People. You don`t have to like it, but it`s fact.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

That`s a common liberal spin, that the Founders were deists. They came from the very same populous that the rest of the colonists came from, and they were solidly Christian men and women. They came to, and settled this land primarily for religious freedom. Their faith was very important to them. And all I`ve said or implied here is that the Founders clearly expected the citizens of the new Republic to always be the same men and women with character, ethics, and a faith in God that they saw when they wrote the Declaration of Independence and Constitution/Bill of Rights. They said that these Natural Rights come from our Creator; Capital "C", expressly implying Almighty-God. They reference God in many of their writing, and most of the Founding Documents.

Spin however you wish the views of the Founders, as well as my perspective, feel free to continue to put words in my mouth. Not of that spinning changes the fact that government has an ethical and moral obligation to craft certain laws to restrain illicit and immoral behavior by The People. You don`t have to like it, but it`s fact.

Greg, show me in the Constitution, or the Declaration (which has no bearing on laws whatsoever) where they said that "alcohol good, marijuana bad". The 19th amendment outlawed alcohol. The 21st amendment ended prohibition (for alcohol). Nowhere in there is marijuana (or other drugs) mentioned. Nowhere in the constitution does it limit the rights to only people that do not engage in "illicit and immoral behavior by The People". The opinion of one of the founders was just that. I happen to agree with it! However, it didn't get put into the Constitution explicitly. Nowhere in the Constitution does it declare Christianity, or a more specifically, a specific sect of Christianity, to be the ONLY permitted religion. That is explicitly why the Pilgrims left England to come here. You are free to have your opinion. You are not free to declare the opinion of others to be wrong just because you don't agree with them.

 

[gregr]

Greg, show me in the Constitution, or the Declaration (which has no bearing on laws whatsoever) where they said that "alcohol good, marijuana bad". The 19th amendment outlawed alcohol. The 21st amendment ended prohibition (for alcohol). Nowhere in there is marijuana (or other drugs) mentioned. Nowhere in the constitution does it limit the rights to only people that do not engage in "illicit and immoral behavior by The People". The opinion of one of the founders was just that. I happen to agree with it! However, it didn't get put into the Constitution explicitly. Nowhere in the Constitution does it declare Christianity, or a more specifically, a specific sect of Christianity, to be the ONLY permitted religion. That is explicitly why the Pilgrims left England to come here. You are free to have your opinion. You are not free to declare the opinion of others to be wrong just because you don't agree with them.

Correct, the Declaration of Independence has no bearings on law whatsoever, however, it dovetails beautifully with the Constitution and, it shows a line of reasoning that the Founders had. They reference God and show that He influenced the way they thought and why they did many of the things they did.
And certainly they came to have freedom of worship, and that is a major thread of the fabric of the Republic. No one is ever mandated to worship in any particular fashion, or, to worship at all. What I have said is that the Founders were men of faith, and that shows in the documents they crafted and the rights and laws they formed. I`ve also illustrated that the Founders understood that freedom only works with a people that are moral. Immoral people misuse their freedoms and it results in instability and a fractured culture and society. The mind altering drugs you champion flourished in the 60`s, and the 60`s were the beginning of the liberal social changes and thinking that started the beginning of the destruction of the traditional family, and the breakdown of the societal barriers that once held back the scourge of unwed mothers, teen mothers, sexual perversion, and the lazy, slovenly lifestyles that today permeate the culture. Governments today, local, state and federal, spend trillions of dollars trying to subdue, turnback, or make up for the damage to society caused by the undoing of the things that parenting once kept from ever happening. Mind altering substances aren`t a help to society. Alcohol is bad enough. Many lives and families have been completely destroyed by the abuse of alcohol, but mind altering drugs are even more nefarious, since they`re even more addictive. Studies have shown that lab mice, when presented with a choice between food and cocaine, would choose cocaine and even refuse to eat to the point of death.
And words have been put in my mouth, and I`ve been told what I mean and what I`m saying, even though I`ve said no such thing. I do have the right to straighten that out. Everyone expresses their opinions here, and many are more dogmatic than I am. I would imagine that all of us who are passionate about our positions feel that we`re right, and others are wrong. I recon I can make that claim as easily as anyone else.

 

[DoggyDaddy]

Thank you for the well though out response gregr. I agree with much of it, and disagree with some, but that's okay! What you just posted came across as much more reasonable than some of the previous responses that I and some others took issue with.

Things that I agree with...
"it dovetails beautifully with the Constitution and, it shows a line of reasoning that the Founders had. They reference God and show that He influenced the way they thought and why they did many of the things they did." (With the caveat that "Creator" has different meanings for different people/religions). I choose to believe that they're all talking about the same thing. The Native Americans for example referred to "The Great Spirit". A rose by any other name...?

"freedom only works with a people that are moral. Immoral people misuse their freedoms and it results in instability and a fractured culture and society." Agree for the most part. Sometimes moral people misuse their freedoms too.

Things I'm not too sure about...

"The mind altering drugs you champion flourished in the 60`s, and the 60`s were the beginning of the liberal social changes and thinking that started the beginning of the destruction of the traditional family, and the breakdown of the societal barriers that once held back the scourge of unwed mothers, teen mothers, sexual perversion, and the lazy, slovenly lifestyles that today permeate the culture."

First, I'm not "championing" anything. Marijuana use goes back to ancient people. It was also popular with Jazz musicians back in the 20's and 30's. The 60's (and early 70's) were definitely a time where drug use flourished. IMHO that's not what destroyed the traditional family though. That was LBJ and the welfare system that rewarded women with no father in the home to help raise the children he fathered.

I also think that THAT reason is what lead to the rest of your statement moreso than the drugs. The drugs were just a symptom, not the cause.