11-30-2018, 03:18 AM
(This post was last modified: 11-30-2018, 01:43 PM by Eric the Green.)
(11-30-2018, 02:50 AM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: One of the states put a justification phrase on their right of free speech. It says in effect that as law makers have to speak freely to debate legislation, the People have a right of free speech. Under the Jim Crow theory, legislatures are a group which are privileged by immunity from persecution of free speech. They would be a privileged group. Under the standard model, the People are a group of the whole, thus everybody has free speech.
No one believes in the in the Jim Crow interpretation of the text except those who wish to destroy human rights. The whole purpose of the Jim Crow court was to destroy the rights of blacks. They pretended to believe the founding fathers intended to create rights only for the government employees, not the People. Rights are limited to government employees, be it legislators or militias. That is an absurd interpretation. I am a standard model individual rights guy.
Of course, there is a lot you have to read into the founding fathers, implied clauses like "This applies to white male Protestants only." Our standards are much different today. Most blues apply the equality rights to far more people these days, to females and minorities. Some folks are not yet believers in equality, still strive towards prejudice. I see them as in error, as advancing an old and wrong way of thinking.
I agree, and I know you think this has some relevance to the gun issue, and I don't agree that it does. I disagree that gun rights are rights of equality.
No, the fact that the 2nd amendment is long outdated is a fact that can't be obfuscated that way. We don't have legal citizens' militias. We have the military (and military students as David pointed out in a few places), police, and national guard. They work for the people, so the people need to make sure they obey the law and respect our rights.
Quote:In an era of recreational drugs, everybody has to worry about burglars. They are not limited to urban parts of the population, as you would know if you knew the culture. The reds know red culture.
Maybe they do know their culture better. The idea that isolated people need guns because the police are far away still makes no sense to me, drugs or no drugs, if they live in isolated locations to begin with. Burglars and drug gangs have much easier pickins in town. But, that's just how it appears to me.
If drugs are making crime worse in rural areas, then the solution is not for people there to be armed, but to end the war on drugs and start treating drug addicts instead, wherever they are.
Quote:And you are not fanatical, fear based and dogmatic? Pot, kettle. Kettle, pot. You are insisting they live by a culture based on how people live far away, a culture based on a far different population density. You are set in your beliefs, totally unwilling to listen, locked into an adversarial way of thinking. The result is at best dysfunctional. One size does not fit all. Wake up and grow up.
No I am not dogmatic, to the extent that I am willing to compromise with rural people and settle for what I can get regarding gun laws. The right-wing is dogmatic and ruthless on this issue, and on EVERY issue. They insist that urban people MUST have the permissive gun laws that suit rural culture, and are total slaves to the NRA. The Left is mostly not as dogmatic and uncompromising, although some of the Bernie vs. Hillary people have become more so. That's just the political landscape of our time.
So, no, none of what you say is true. Same advice applies to you, I'm afraid. Yes, I am very liberal and set in a lot of my views, but like Obama said, I don't have to demand perfection, I can settle for better. The Parkland students recommend what I recommend, so I am not more dogmatic or fanatical than they when it comes to AR-15s. To insist that weapons of war be taken off our streets does not make me fanatical or dogmatic, even if I don't agree with your constitutional reasoning.
All people on the internet tend to be stubborn in their views; I am not more so than others. So insulting people who have different views is not necessarily warranted, Bob.