Backlash in NY & Penalties?

[De Selby]

We've already seen what "they" have done along those line with things like the occupy wall street bunch and the "peaceful" protests we've seen at various G8 type events.
We've also seen how our representative government still managed to pass the ACA when it was pretty clear that the majority of Americans did not support it.

And how much difference have the occupy folks made to banking???

I'm not sure it's clear that most Americans oppose Obamacare.   They probably will when they realise what it is, but most opponents of it don't seem to know either. 

[dogmush]

The polls prior to it being deemed passed were pretty clear, and life on the ground here is pretty clear.  No one likes Obamacare.  It either went to far, or not did not enough. But it doesn't enjoy support of even a large minority of Americans, much less a majority.

And while I do agree that in general it's better to solve these little differences through the political process rather then extra legal or lethal way, if there's one thing history has taught us it's that there's some lines you don't allow your government to cross.  To many people have died or been enslaved while trying to work it out peacefully.  Peace is good, but there are some things that require blood right now. Free people don't dare let them progress.  A credible attempt to disarm a population is one of those things.

Now that being said, I don't think our current Congress has a credible chance of doing so, and I have enough faith in our process to let it pay out.  Really.  Even in NY where the laws have been passed, so far they're just words.  If the NY law enforcement starts a valid attempt to round up and kill or imprison folks who are armed, then we might have to reconsider letting NY's process play.  But so far, they're not, the dude with AR mags not-withstanding.

I would also argue that a large portion of overturning prohibition was the overwhelming willingness of the public to publicly ignore those laws, and fight law enforcement if needed to preserve their freedom.  Which is what NY'ers are discussing currently.

As a parting note, words have meanings.  Some things are natural rights and others aren't.  It's not a matter of opinion. A human has the right of self determination. And of self defense. and to defend those rights to the death if he chooses.  He does NOT have the right to other peoples labor, which in the end is what healthcare is.  So it matters not how many people think healthcare is a right, they are wrong.  The only healthcare you have a right to is that which you can administer to yourself.

[SteveS]

If they're going to repeal it, I think it's more likely to result from finding out just how many voters it affects. If not, it will probably take a lot of politicians losing their jobs to get the point across.

True.  How big is this movement?  NY already has some of the most restrictive gun laws in the country, so I just don't see politicians being all that worried about gun owners as a political force.

[De Selby]

Dog mush, that's your view of what is a natural right, but obviously a lot of the population does not agree.  Nor will many find the argument that its "natural" for things to be that way convincing.  Fundamentals of righs are not a matter of dictionary definition and never will be.

That's why a political process that seeks agreement on these questions is so important.  

[Tallpine]

obviously a lot of the population does not agree

obviously a lot of the population expects the rest of the population to support them in the manner to which they want to be accustomed 

[AJ Dual]

Dog mush, that's your view of what is a natural right, but obviously a lot of the population does not agree.  Nor will many find the argument that its "natural" for things to be that way convincing.  Fundamentals of righs are not a matter of dictionary definition and never will be.

That's why a political process that seeks agreement on these questions is so important.  

You keep trying to bend the debate around to the idea that natural rights are defined by some sort of consensus.

They aren't. They exist whether or not anyone recognizes them at all.

Now, as a functional or a practical matter, the ability to exercise natural rights certainly is impacted by the number of people who recognize them, but that is a different conversation.  And this is more about the issue of when you do find yourself outnumbered on the issue. At that point, in the American system, if the courts don't bail you out, you're then in the position with nothing to lose.

It may even not be a matter of "winning" and simply making things as expensive and painful as possible for them on your way down. And unfortunately, waiting until you are certain you're at that point often means it's too late to do even that.

The negatives of being "offputting to the sheeple" are in the long-run outweighed by the American gun-owner taking a do... not... touch... stance in all ways possible. Tactics that many, even myself included, have dismissed in the past, like open-carry walks, or the VCDL showing up to government meetings armed have proven to be effective.

[Ron]

You keep trying to bend the debate around to the idea that natural rights are defined by some sort of consensus.

They aren't. They exist whether or not anyone recognizes them at all.

Now, as a functional or a practical matter, the ability to exercise natural rights certainly is impacted by the number of people who recognize them, but that is a different conversation.  

In the post modern world where there is no truth there are no natural rights.

Ultimately there are only human constructs agreed upon by society, our social contract.

Our founders believed there was a such thing as truth, as natural rights and attempted to box in the government and the majority with the law.

Once our culture abandoned truth as a concept and rights were conflated with entitlements we became doomed.

We are back where humans always end up, might makes right.

[AJ Dual]

In the post modern world where there is no truth there are no natural rights.

Ultimately there are only human constructs agreed upon by society, our social contract.

Our founders believed there was a such thing as truth, as natural rights and attempted to box in the government and the majority with the law.

Once our culture abandoned truth as a concept and rights were conflated with entitlements we became doomed.

We are back where humans always end up, might makes right.

Which of course makes RKBA all the more important, and removing it all the more important to those who would rule us.

[Nick1911]

In the post modern world where there is no truth there are no natural rights.

Ultimately there are only human constructs agreed upon by society, our social contract.

Our founders believed there was a such thing as truth, as natural rights and attempted to box in the government and the majority with the law.

Once our culture abandoned truth as a concept and rights were conflated with entitlements we became doomed.

We are back where humans always end up, might makes right.

What truth?  Can you prove that natural rights exist?  Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"

Of course not.  Natural rights are a human invention.  It's an perspective, one that people created.  It only has power insomuch as people choose to believe in it.

Even in things that are "well proven" by experiment, there exists varying degrees of uncertainty.  To quote Feynman;  "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."

[Ron]

That's my point Nick, follow that rabbit hole far enough and you can rationalize away anything.

The human animal or the human bio/chem machine has no intrinsic worth other than what society decides at any given time.

Arguing all humans are or should be equal is no more "right" or "true" than arguing the masses should be shepherded by the elite to produce a better life for the elite is "right" or "true".

Our dystopia is upon us, should be interesting.

[CNYCacher]

What truth?  Can you prove that natural rights exist?  Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"

Of course not.  Natural rights are a human invention.  It's an perspective, one that people created.  It only has power insomuch as people choose to believe in it.

Even in things that are "well proven" by experiment, there exists varying degrees of uncertainty.  To quote Feynman;  "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."

Do you have the right to own a rock?

[tokugawa]

Dog mush, that's your view of what is a natural right, but obviously a lot of the population does not agree.  Nor will many find the argument that its "natural" for things to be that way convincing.  Fundamentals of righs are not a matter of dictionary definition and never will be.

That's why a political process that seeks agreement on these questions is so important.  

 I will tell you what is NOT a right, and it is absolute-

 It is not a right if it has to be taken by force from one person, to be given to another.

 This includes  the so called "positive" rights, like jobs, healthcare, housing, telephones, etc.

 At this point, the "payer" is a slave to the "payee".

 

[Tallpine]

Can you prove that natural rights exist?  Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"

Actually I can at least in this case - but I'm not quite yet willing to become a violent criminal in order to do so 

[Balog]

What truth?  Can you prove that natural rights exist?  Can you preform an experiment under reasonably controlled conditions and say, "Yup, just what we expected, there's the natural rights!"

Of course not.  Natural rights are a human invention.  It's an perspective, one that people created.  It only has power insomuch as people choose to believe in it.

Even in things that are "well proven" by experiment, there exists varying degrees of uncertainty.  To quote Feynman;  "I have approximate answers and possible beliefs in different degrees of certainty about different things, but I'm not absolutely sure of anything."

Post modernism at its finest. And rather silly, as of course no one actually lives their life that way or applies it to the structural realities of life.

I still find the absolutist truth statement that there are no absolute knowable truths amusing.

[Nick1911]

I still find the absolutist truth statement that there are no absolute knowable truths amusing.

Ah, please feel free to enlighten me.  What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?

[Balog]

Ah, please feel free to enlighten me.  What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?

How do you know you aren't in an insane asylum and hallucinating this conversation? How do you know you aren't an alien's fever dream and the world will dissappear when he wakes up? How do you know you're not actually dead and 6th Sense was a bio-pic of you? 

[Strings]

Pardon my saying this, Balog, but I find the above evasive and insulting.

You took a stance, and were asked to back it up. Now, fish or cut bait: throwing sillyness at the question isn't how we're supposed to handle issues here.

[Nick1911]

How do you know you aren't in an insane asylum and hallucinating this conversation? How do you know you aren't an alien's fever dream and the world will dissappear when he wakes up? How do you know you're not actually dead and 6th Sense was a bio-pic of you? 

Right off the bat, assuming anyone's sanity is an absolute truth is folly - we have documented evidence of people that are in fact crazy and suffer delusions which they perceive as reality.

As to your other points, is reality as we experience is the feverish dream of an alien fish?  Seems improbable, but there are plenty of people who believe that our existence was created by some larger, all encompassing consciousness.  While I find it unlikely, I can't disprove it with absolute certainty any more they they can prove it.  Not an absolute truth, and not absolutely disproved.

Ditto for 6th sense life-after-death muckery.  Near as I can tell from observation, and the recorded observation from other humans, this is extremely improbable.  The overwhelming body of evidence from millenia of things dying tends to suggests that creatures cease to exist when they die.  I don't know that with complete certainty, of course.  It might be posiable that people are more then bio-chem machines and after death some people can become ghosts; I don't see much evidence for it, but I can't conclusivly disprove it either.  Can you?

Now that I've answered your query, I'll ask again: What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?

[Gewehr98]

Speaking of backlash in New York, anybody here see that video of the January 29th Safe Act Town Hall meeting in Erie County, New York?

http://youtu.be/Ol1SzjHPFGw

If this video got to Mr. Cuomo and his henchmen, you could almost count the seconds before they'd ask their tech people to find out who the insurgents were, and start the no-knocks.  

[Balog]

Pardon my saying this, Balog, but I find the above evasive and insulting.

You took a stance, and were asked to back it up. Now, fish or cut bait: throwing sillyness at the question isn't how we're supposed to handle issues here.

It’s laughable that you’re attempting to dictate how I may respond. The argument is patently absurd, and deserving of no more respect than I gave it. And I thought we handled issues here by posting silly pictures and making jokes involving bacon and detcord?

If you take Nick's stance, there is no way to answer his question. Nothing can be demonstrated to be truth, because all we have are the inputs of our senses and the inputs of our senses are inherently unreliable. I can't "prove" any of the things I believe any more than Nick can "prove" that the answers to any of my questions is no.

The basic post-modernist viewpoint is a claim to know an absolute truth: that there is no absolute truth, and we couldn't know it even if there was. It's an absurd and self defeating argument. All I need to do to refute it is repeat the claim back but aimed at post modernism itself. And it's made even more evident by the simple fact that no one attempts to live their life in accord with that claim.

As for what I believe? I believe that there is an actual reality, as well as absolute truth. We can know it, albeit imperfectly. But I can't "prove" that, any more than a post modernist can "prove" that they actually exist. Debating post modernism is a silly and pointless endeavor, because there is quite literally nothing that one can do that meets the bar of proof implicit in the basic idea of the philosophy.

This all started because Nick denied that it is possible to have certainty about anything. I was addressing that notion.

Right off the bat, assuming anyone's sanity is an absolute truth is folly - we have documented evidence of people that are in fact crazy and suffer delusions which they perceive as reality.

As to your other points, is reality as we experience is the feverish dream of an alien fish?  Seems improbable, but there are plenty of people who believe that our existence was created by some larger, all encompassing consciousness.  While I find it unlikely, I can't disprove it with absolute certainty any more they they can prove it.  Not an absolute truth, and not absolutely disproved.

Ditto for 6th sense life-after-death muckery.  Near as I can tell from observation, and the recorded observation from other humans, this is extremely improbable.  The overwhelming body of evidence from millenia of things dying tends to suggests that creatures cease to exist when they die.  I don't know that with complete certainty, of course.  It might be posiable that people are more then bio-chem machines and after death some people can become ghosts; I don't see much evidence for it, but I can't conclusivly disprove it either.  Can you?

Now that I've answered your query, I'll ask again: What, in your opinion, are absolute knowable truths; and how do you know these things to be absolutely, universally true?

You're asking me for proof, while rejecting that it is possible to show proof. I'll answer it right after you tell me if you've stopped beating your dog.

[roo_ster]

How do we know his dog exists?  His dog is an illusion.  Or maybe his dog is Gandhi, given that it hasn't killed him.

This postmodernist sophistry is fun!  Not in an absolute sense, but relative to shaving my back with a rusty Bic razor.


Sit, Gandhi, SIT!

[Nick1911]

So, absolute truths exist; but we don't know what they are, and their validity can't be proven?

[Balog]

Again, 

Nick: We can't know anything.

Balog: Yes we can.

Nick: Prove it.

Balog: What will you accept as proof?

Nick: Absolutely nothing.

Balog: Then I definitionally can't prove anything.

Nick: I win!

[De Selby]

Hilarious irony - to prove that natural rights exist apart from people's opinions, the best we get is an appeal to consensus - "but Nick, don't you agree it's crazy to think any other way!"

Surely if they're so fundamental we don't need to rely on other people agreeing with our assumptions about truth to prove them.

And that's the problem with all the 'state of nature' malarkey that's been the source of this - unless you presume that all the other folks in your state of nature already agree with you, the fantasy construct solved no moral problem.

Hilarity number two:  folks complaining about how might-makes right is an unfair infringement on their rights, while talking about showing up with guns to prevent said infringement.

Really folks, I'm starting to question whether the right is losing the political battle due to Orwellian implosion more than the "FSA" (you know, all those people who can't possibly deny your picture of natural rights!).

[Fitz]

There IS such a thing as absolute truth.

Observe



Kate Beckinsale is beautiful.

If you disagree, you probably are just a figment of my imagination