[spence]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

Superficially supported beliefs can be deeply held, have you ever dealt with a woman with PMS?

Monthly

The two terms, "values" and "principles" identify beliefs of very different origin. Principles are foundational and unalterable and generally last a lifetime; values are fluid and undergo constant examination and tweaking to conform to one's feelings at that moment.

Most people use them interchangeably, although I think you have them reversed. Value is the unalterable belief and a principal would guide how the value was applied.

No, those sentiments come from nearly 20 years of experience debating liberals about gun control on the internet. First was talk.politics.guns on USENET, way before any forums had a presence on the WWW, then once that technology took off, on many news and politics forums on the web. Gun control is one topic where all those peccadilloes of liberals are really exposed and liberal's true beliefs about individual liberty shine through.

I think the liberal position on gun control is pretty straightforward and is based on individual liberty (a deeply held value), or more precisely the right to not have your safety taken away by another.

That being said I think the counter argument is stronger. I've always been a proponent for responsible gun ownership.

But to the topic at hand; usually the most ardent "strict gun control" supporters are the ones most ignorant of firearms and their most simple functions as mechanical objects, let alone technical aspects like ballistics . . . Those people "just know" that guns are "bad" and no amount of logic or facts will dissuade their illogical and emotional based position.

Certainly there are elements of the AWB that are based on emotion, such as the restrictions on weapons that "look" more dangerous. I don't think this is necessarily illogical though, a lawmaker has to draw the line somewhere. For instance that evil "looking" semi-auto could be indistinguishable from a real automatic weapon in the eyes of law enforcement.

Today's progressives are tearing apart everything our progressive founder's built.

This cuts both ways. Many consider the Bush administrations radically progressive response to 9/11 as running counter to our Founder's principals as well. I don't think one faction has a monopoly on constitutional erosion.

I agree, but . . . The fundamental principles upon which the Constitution rests are unalterable and all law and even amendments must be in agreement with those principles. See Marbury v Madison:[INDENT] "That the people have an original right to establish, for their future government, such principles as, in their opinion, shall most conduce to their own happiness, is the basis on which the whole American fabric has been erected. The exercise of this original right is a very great exertion; nor can it nor ought it to be frequently repeated. The principles, therefore, so established are deemed fundamental. And as the authority, from which they proceed, is supreme, and can seldom act, they are designed to be permanent."

I'm not sure I understand what you're getting at. Liberals are not necessarily opposed to the fundamental values of liberty and equality, but rather the application of these values often differs from that of conservatives. Holding the constitution as supreme is always going to be seen through a lens if your interpretation of the values differs. Hence, the basis for this entire discussion.

I specifically avoided using the "communist" label . . . One can promote and endorse "communitarian" ideals and not be a communist. Do you have an alternate history to offer for the genesis of social, cultural and economic "rights" and their emergence in western culture, post Depression, other than the Soviet Revolution and communitarian thought being embraced by the powers that be? Is there any evidence of such thought from the founding period? Where exactly do you think the general philosophy came from?

Was there influence from the communist thinking of the time? I'm sure there was...even The Communist Manifesto makes an interesting point now and then. I think progressive ideas came about in this country largely as a response to how were evolving as an industrialized nation and as an alternative to socialism.

. . . as an Illinois state senator, his comments are perfectly understandable. The comments and the sentiments behind them must now be re-filtered through the Presidency and the opportunity Obama has to shape the federal judiciary with ideologues who agree with him that the "fundamental flaw in the Constitution and its interpretation" must be corrected.

You use quotes but I don't hear that statement in the audio.

Obama's point, that the framers of the Constitution had a "blind spot" on the issue of civil rights and that the Warren Courts weren't really that radical...isn't that radical of a statement.

Back then, he was speaking as a law professor and state senator with those position's limited impact and "legislative" bias on display (he admits this in the recording). The realization has occurred that what he once thought only possible via the legislature, is not viable politically; . . . and what he once thought impossible though the courts, is possible with the new duty to nominate federal judges and Justices in his hands.

I think he was speaking as an academic.

But ultimately the proof is in the putting. Had Obama's intent been to subvert the Constitution via the bench, the nomination of Sotomayor was a very poor choice.

-spence