View Single Post
Old 10-06-2017, 01:00 PM   #163
Registered User
Join Date: Feb 2009
Posts: 3,698
Originally Posted by Jim in CT View Post
"Seat belt law does not ban anything"

Sure it does. Before these laws, many people chose not to wear their seal belts. These laws ban that choice. That's a thing. If people were choosing not to wear seat belts despite the danger, I presume they felt like they had a good reason to do so. Now it's illegal to make that choice.

OK. Let me fix the "thing" thing. "Seat belt law does not ban anything. It does not ban cars nor even superfast, super-powerful cars. It does not remove several ton trucks from the road. It doesn't require background checks. It doesn't restrict your right to own any of those. The greatest potential and actual reduction of vehicle deaths is safe, sane, drivers." Do you see the connection--seat belt law does not restrict the power of the automobile (whereas gun control laws do restrict the power of weapons). And vehicle death reduction is mostly due to sane, safe drivers, as is the safe, sane, case in gun deaths, the laws in each case notwithstanding.

"seat belt laws have no impact on your ability to defend yourself against tyranny."

The feds have nukes, stealth bombers, those cool bombs that destroy caves, rail guns, etc. So the only reason they aren't using those against me, is because I might have a couple of guns in a vault? That makes more sense, than I can make when I say that smart laws might save a few lives? Really?

The loss of constitutional protections has been incremental because that is the only way the character of a free people could be chipped away. Any federal military attack on the people of this country would obviously be the downfall of that government. Nor is it the Progressive intention to have a military war against the American people. The intention is to eliminate the hold the Constitution has on the governance of this country. That is done by philosophically and psychologically, and by regulation, invading, not the people, but their institutions. And that method began before our country had the weapons to which you refer. It has been very successful to this point, albeit, it has taken a long time. And the character of our people has dramatically changed vis a vis freedom, what it is, and how it is protected. The word is not often used, except by people who are now marginalized as kooks.

We do not have to fear government nukes, stealth bombers, etc., if we fear the loss of freedom. People will mobilize against such attacks, especially if they have weapons, not to speak of the military commanders who would turn on such a government. We have to fear the loss of the American character that jealously guarded against governmental intrusion against freedom. We have to fear (and I don't feel comfortable using that word--maybe concern would be better) the imprecise, mushy, emotional, language that influences us to, rather brainlessly, accept the notion that government gives us freedom and tells us what it is.

Mass immigration, BTW, not mass shootings, has been part of what I believe is the intended changing of the American character.

We are somehow mesmerized into believing that an all-powerful benevolent government is far more beneficial to us than the responsibility of being free. What on earth, and I mean that literally, gives us to believe that once limitations on government are erased government will always be benevolent. All the Constitution does is keep government in its proper place regarding individual freedom. It's what I referred to in another thread as freedom insurance. Things like the Second Amendment are parts of the insurance policy that helps to guaranty it. You like to say cars are different. They are necessary to our way of life. We can't overregulate their use even though their misuse causes more unconsented death than guns of any type in our country. And that it is wise of us to have automobile and health insurance, costly and imperfect as they may be, but a policy that may guard against some future tyranny--well that's a different argument because some mass shootings happen.

"the connection is so minute that it is shameful to try it"

I disagree. every night this week, I heard gun advocates claim that no gun control laws can effectively ban all attacks. They are saying, that because the laws aren't perfect, that they are worthless. I hear that every single night, all night long, from the right. It's one of the most common statements.

You said "In other words, they seem to be saying that unless a proposed gun law guarantees that there will be zero gun deaths, that there's no sense in enacting any laws."

That is an absurd, sophist, statement. You try to gloss over the nonsense about people saying that if zero gun deaths occur as a result of a law there's no sense in enacting any laws" with your notion that they "seem" to be saying that. Do you really hear that every night of the week--they are actually saying that? That's BS--of course, if it "seems" that way to you, I can't argue against what something seems to you.

"The balance between freedom and subjugation, if there is a balance, must weigh in favor of freedom if freedom is the object."

Limitless freedom isn't the object, we know this.

I have said on various threads, including this one, what is meant by freedom by the Founders in regards to natural rights and the Constitution. It is not license to trespass against anyone else's freedom. It comprises the virtue to understand and practice what freedom really is. License is not freedom. It depends on subjugating others to your will, not on respecting their freedom. It has to be mutually consented or it is tyranny.

The founders were specific on that, that they weren't designing an anarchy. Some limits on freedom are perfectly constitutional. There is a tradeoff between liberty and security.

Those are vague words. Could you flesh them out?

Cars cause a lot of deaths. I have never, not once, heard anyone call for a ban on cars. We aren't a society that wants to ban everything that's dangerous. Not even close.

What do cars have to do with it?

I don't see a big benefit to allowing things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines. I see a very big benefit, to a few less graves being dug during mass shootings (I am not talking about street crime).
OK. If bump stocks are not allowed to be made, then nobody can have what does not exist. Constitutional arguments can be made against such a ban, but my mind is too numbed by your all-over-the-place points. I think that's the way Progressives eventually get tough stuff passed. They wear you down to where you just give in to feed them a bone so they'll go away. Of course, feeding the bone just encourages them to even come after more.

Last edited by detbuch; 10-06-2017 at 01:23 PM..
detbuch is offline   Reply With Quote