Skip to main content

View Diary: You will know fear! (104 comments)

Comment Preferences

  •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

    For a number of reasons.  Barrett believes in the Second Amendment.  He also apparently believes in standing with his customers.

    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 09:01:07 AM PST

    [ Parent ]

    •  There's that buzzword again "Believe" (0+ / 0-)

      Do YOU believe in the second amendment?

      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 10:22:53 AM PST

      [ Parent ]

      •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

        Yes, I do.  Very strongly.

        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 10:38:09 AM PST

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes, that what religious people say about the (0+ / 0-)

          bible. They "believe" in the bible's text as literal truth.

          They "don't believe" in evolution. Which is another way of saying their faith in what their religious leaders tell them is stronger than their faith in what scientists tell them.

          But here's the thing. Universal human rights exist if if no one believes in them.

          The right to self defense is a universal human right.

          For rights to exist in the form of laws that protect them, that requires support and acceptance by legislators, support and acceptance by the judiciary and executive branch too, along with the consent of the governed.

          I support the right to keep and bear arms, but I do not believe in the second amendment as currently interpreted by SCOTUS.

          My support for the right to keep and bear arms does not require or depend on faith.

          Get it?

          "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

          by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 10:54:30 AM PST

          [ Parent ]

          •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

            Its what moral people say about values, period.  Or do you not believe in the fundamental dignity of every human being, the inherent good of equality, justice, and inalienable human rights?

            When you start conflating values with empirical statements, you're not doing either science or ethics a favor.

            When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

            by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:03:44 AM PST

            [ Parent ]

            •  Sure, I believe in values (0+ / 0-)

              and believe in the value of the principles you list.

              But legislation or a constitution is something you support, or you don't support, you advocate for or against it, or you elect representatives to advocate for your interests.

              Saying one believes in the 2A is like saying they believe in money.

              Money has no inherent value. It only has value as a unit of currency because of the legal structures in place and the consent of the governed.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:10:41 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (0+ / 0-)

                On balance, I agree.  However, certainly some legislation rises to statements on fundamental values.  And constitutions, for better or worse, rife with such statements.  To say I believe in the Second Amendment is to say I believe in the value it embodies.  To dwell on the phrasing is pedantic at best; you obviously understand the thought conveyed by saying "I believe in X."

                When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:20:01 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  Pedantic perhaps (0+ / 0-)

                  but if you are willing to advocate for the values, for the human rights, you might be able to cut through some of the crap.

                  When you say you believe in the 2A you open up endless squabbling over a flawed legal instrument.

                  You think I'm just being pedantic, but I invite you to try it differently and see what happens.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:26:46 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: Don't sweat it. (1+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas

                    I have no intentions of debating 2A with you.  But I do intend to continue saying "I believe in the Second Amendment."  You're free to tune that out when you come across it.

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:30:04 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

                    •  Okay, you're going to stick with your approach (0+ / 0-)

                      How will you know when it's working?

                      How will you know when it's persuasive?

                      "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                      by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:48:37 AM PST

                      [ Parent ]

                      •  Re (1+ / 0-)
                        Recommended by:
                        KVoimakas

                        It's not meant to be persuasive.  It's a simple statement of fact.  If hearing "I believe in the Second Amendment" is enough to turn you off--it obviously isn't, since you're still engaging--then it's probably not worth my time to pursue further conversation.  I doubt this is a terribly common infliction amongst even the most diehard gun control proponents.

                        When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                        by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:58:03 AM PST

                        [ Parent ]

            •  Conflation (0+ / 0-)

              that's a common charge used for a variety of rhetorical purposes.

              A person can fully value a right of self defense and the right to defend ones property AND at the same time see the 2A as a flawed instrument to protect the fundamental right.

              I think that the 2A as construed over the last few decades had created too many problems, and consequently either it needs to be amended or replaced.

              IMO it needs to be replaced with something that will uphold the individual right to self defense, while making it clear there is no right to threaten others.

              "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

              by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:22:22 AM PST

              [ Parent ]

              •  Re: (1+ / 0-)
                Recommended by:
                KVoimakas

                I don't see how you can fully value the right to self defense and then deny citizens the right to the means.  I'm certain there are people who say that they can, but they've never laid out a coherent argument for it.  On its face, it's ridiculous.

                Conflation is precisely what you did.  If it's a common charge, then perhaps you should stop doing it.

                When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:28:49 AM PST

                [ Parent ]

                •  We were talking about the means in this (0+ / 0-)

                  subthread.

                  I don't see how people such as yourself can presume that people are are presumptively responsible law abiding gun owners. The evidence to the contrary is enormous.

                  We set so many people up to fail, and select enforcement of existing law then feeds them into the prison pipeline, and the negative consequences compound from there.

                  How can someone who has no training in the law, no training in gun safety, no assistance with becoming proficient as a marksman or a gun owner be a responsible law abiding gun owner.

                  Currently it's a societal game of Russian roulette.

                  Poor kid buys a gun, but not a holster. Wouldn't occur to him to take a gun safety class. Sticks it in his waistband, and shoots himself in the leg. Or he doesn't go the range to practice. Never bothers to clean the gun until it jams. Shoots someone while trying to disassemble the jammed gun for cleaning.

                  The toll of injury and death by gunshot is born by those who survive, who must pick up the pieces of their shattered lives.

                  Under current law, we set poor, uneducated and careless people up for catastrophic failure, and then blame them for the negative compounding effects ongoing in their lives.

                  "They did not succeed in taking away our voice" - Angelique Kidjo - Opening the Lightning In a Bottle concert at Radio City Music Hall in New York City - 2003

                  by LilithGardener on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:45:17 AM PST

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  Re: (2+ / 0-)
                    Recommended by:
                    KVoimakas, Nowhere Man

                    Same reason I believe in the presumption of innocence, though I admit that my standard of evidence when merely observing falls short of reasonable doubt.  

                    If you can't see how I can presume that people are law abiding and non-violent, should I take that to mean you presume your fellow citizens are violent law breakers?  Is that a healthy way to go through life?  And what evidence to the contrary?  This country has 300 million people, 4/5ths of whom are adults and the vast majority manage to go from birth to death without so much as an arrest on their record.

                    You make a lot of assumptions about the degree of proficiency gun owners have, but it goes beyond simple precaution and borders on paranoia.  I'm all in favor of mandating training because I believe doing so is to the benefit of the owner, his family and his community.  Casual gun ownership is as much a threat to gun rights as the paranoiacs dressing down rape victims with made up statistics.  However, I am not going to tolerate "gun safety" measures that are merely dressed up attempts to curtail and discourage gun ownership period.

                    I'd find it hilarious that the people screaming about the misuse of firearms by our youth are the same people who balk at even age appropriate, comprehensive education for our kids.  But when the result of this Luddism is more dead bodies in the streets there's no place for laughter.

                    When God gives you lemons, you find a new god.

                    by Patrick Costighan on Wed Mar 06, 2013 at 11:56:00 AM PST

                    [ Parent ]

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site