06-13-2016, 09:29 PM
(06-13-2016, 07:49 PM)Mikebert Wrote: Not mentioned is the question of prudence.
The position of a strong 2nd Amendment supporter is that the shooter had the right to purchase powerful weapons. He has the right to caress his weapons and fantasize about shooting a roomful of faggots. He has the right to carry them into gay nightclub.
They support this even though they know that someone in this situation is prone to use his weapons, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.
On the other hand, the same people deny the right of a people (e.g. Iran) to acquire or have powerful weapons because they fear they may use them, resulting in the deaths of innocent people.
How does one justify these two contradictory positions? I think the answer lies in proportionality or scale. Does the right of a potentially irrational sovereign nation/individual to be able bear powerful arms outweigh the threat of deaths of innocent people from the inappropriate use of such powerful arms?
Good questions. I hope you aren't expecting easy answers?
One factor not to be forgotten is biases related to world view. It is obvious that people that share one's own world view and values deserve freedom, deserve to have their rights protected, are justified in supporting and extending their values. However, someone with opposing world views and values ought to be contained and rendered harmless by powerful government. We can talk in abstract about where the line should be drawn between freedom protecting rights and life protecting enforcement. Moving from the abstract to the specific gets harder.
In the United States there are all sorts of precedents set on what one has to do before stripping people of Bill of Rights protections. They involve things like proof beyond reasonable doubt and juries of one's peers. It is easy to suggest that traditional law should not apply if someone puts an anti-gay or anti-anything rant on a Facebook page. With benefit of 20 20 hindsight, one can work one's self into a full out rage that the government didn't step in. Do we throw away the Constitution and centuries of precedent in order to mess up the life of anyone who posts something politically incorrect on his Facebook page?
I'm all for denying weapons to the criminal and the insane, but 20 20 hindsight is useless as a preventative tool. People are upset that the FBI had identified this guy as a potential threat, but hadn't achieved a degree of evidence that could be considered actionable. Do you have a good solid idea what degree of evidence ought to be actionable? Can this idea be made compatible with the traditional US legal system? Asking impossible questions isn't a bad thing. Proposing a specific solution might make for a more interesting conversation.
As for Iran and other states that might be interested in large scale killing... Different question on a different scale. We tend to believe western nations can be trusted with impressive armaments as we haven't abused them. We are fighting for things like rights, freedom, and the privilege of major corporations to rape foreign culture for profits, which is OK. (Well... Sorta... Maybe...) I can quite understand how other cultures who were victims of colonial imperialism have quite different perspective on western values and the difference between what the West says and what they end up doing to those they oppress. I can quite understand how a people or a government can be dubious about Western promises and goals while wishing for armaments compatible to the Wests so their own religious values (obviously superior from their perspective) have a chance.
But do I feel warm and comfortable about a nation that has sworn to destroy Israel having nukes? No way. The fallout will come down everywhere.
If one is interested in understanding another culture's world view, it is possible to do so. Understanding is not the same as finding common ground. For the west to cease and desist abhorrent behaviors practiced regularly in the past might be a start. However, these were practice long enough and persistently enough that deeply set prejudices about western behavior and lack of morality aren't going away any time soon. I am not by any means a big fan of radical Islam. Their actions bring much suffering, more to their own people than to foreigners. They are fighting the tide of history and losing badly. Still, I don't find it hard to understand where they are coming from or expect them to discover better alternatives any time soon.
I suppose we could step back and have a fine abstract idealistic discussion about how differences might be resolved if everyone weren't locked into values created by years and years of history. Alas, the results of such a conversation won't much apply to solving problems in the real world.
Specific suggestions might be appreciated. The devil lies in reality.
That this nation, under God, shall have a new birth of freedom, and that government of the people, by the people, for the people shall not perish from the earth.