Defending Semiautomatic Long Guns With Detachable Box Magaznes - Page 6

K_Mac · June 21, 2016, 11:56 AM

I may not have the academic credentials to dive into the deep end of the, "what is the nature of man" pool.

It's a subject that I have spent some time trying to come to terms with though. I completely enjoy a spirited exchange of important ideas. For me, it is the way I clarify and define what I believe. I also recognize that my core beliefs are, as Glenn put it, focused by social beliefs, emotions and religion. I believe that to deny that is intellectually indefensible.

zukiphile · June 21, 2016, 12:14 PM

There is a qualitative difference between an assertion about how one comes to his own conclusions, or even how many people can come to their conclusions, on the one hand, and on the other hand dismissing a specific author's thoughts and argument as mere pretext.

Few would dispute emotion as one element to be accounted for in persuasion generally.

K_Mac · June 21, 2016, 01:01 PM

Zukiphile I am not dismissing your cogent argument. I believe the line between intellect and one's core beliefs is blurry at best. There may be some who can clearly separate the two but for most of us I believe, whether common man or Supreme Court judge, it is impossible, and maybe undesirable, to do so.

zukiphile · June 21, 2016, 01:16 PM

I didn't take your response as a dismissal. I only note a difference between:

1. "I detest people from Indiana so throroughly that it would be difficult for me to decide anything about a person from Indiana without injecting my bias.", and

2. "He held that the man owed federal income tax on the income distributed to him under the trust, but that was just an excuse to act on his bias against people from Indiana".

It's the difference between revealing an affection or antipathy of one's own, a matter about which one can assume he has knowledge, and an accusation that someone else's reasoning is mere pretext.

rickyrick · June 21, 2016, 07:12 PM

The Bill of Rights. The founders knew that governments throughout history desire to limit individual freedom. They knew that officials will eventually try to deny rights; the act of denial may not even be the intention of some of the politicians. Denial of rights can also be intentional.
No matter what the antigun politicians say, they would like to eliminate civilian firearm ownership. The sound bites fool some, but to us who pay attention, we see right through it. The perfect example of this is: anytime new gun control legislation is enacted, the victory speech includes "this is an important first step"

5whiskey · June 21, 2016, 11:37 PM

^^^Rickyrick you hit it. The founders envisioned a government that would eventually attempt to deny rights. This is why I despise the casual flinging of the word "democracy" in any form of debate. A true democracy in and of itself is not evil, but it is subject to the whims of "mob rule" during times of panic and crisis. A true democracy is where 51% of the populace can vote to execute the other 49%, for whatever reason they deem appropriate. Obviously the United States is not a democracy, but a republic.

I understand that most people may say democracy when they in earnest mean a republic, or at least a constitutional democracy, but it still irritates me. Mob rule is real. There are some in the media actually calling for a repeal of the 2nd amendment because of recent events. In normal times they would be deemed an extreme fringe and all but the most extreme sympathizers would shut down 10 seconds into the article, saying "we can't do that." Now? They can expose their fringe views to many more people who no longer say "we can't do that," but instead ask " why can't we do that if it would make us safer. After all science says it would." Were we a democracy, that didn't afford basic human rights protection, then guys in raid vests would be going from door to door to confiscate guns right now. Actually it probably would've happened years ago already.

Its not just politicians, though don't get me wrong I can't think of one that I would trust with virtually anything, but its also the media who is also complicit and responsible. And average citizens who consume media blindly.

June 21, 2016, 11:56 AM	#126
K_Mac Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1,850	I may not have the academic credentials to dive into the deep end of the, "what is the nature of man" pool. It's a subject that I have spent some time trying to come to terms with though. I completely enjoy a spirited exchange of important ideas. For me, it is the way I clarify and define what I believe. I also recognize that my core beliefs are, as Glenn put it, focused by social beliefs, emotions and religion. I believe that to deny that is intellectually indefensible. __________________ "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

June 21, 2016, 12:14 PM	#127
zukiphile Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2005 Posts: 4,454	There is a qualitative difference between an assertion about how one comes to his own conclusions, or even how many people can come to their conclusions, on the one hand, and on the other hand dismissing a specific author's thoughts and argument as mere pretext. Few would dispute emotion as one element to be accounted for in persuasion generally. __________________ http://www.npboards.com/index.php

June 21, 2016, 01:01 PM	#128
K_Mac Senior Member Join Date: September 15, 2010 Posts: 1,850	Zukiphile I am not dismissing your cogent argument. I believe the line between intellect and one's core beliefs is blurry at best. There may be some who can clearly separate the two but for most of us I believe, whether common man or Supreme Court judge, it is impossible, and maybe undesirable, to do so. __________________ "Any fool can criticize, condemn and complain and most fools do." Benjamin Franklin

June 21, 2016, 01:16 PM	#129
zukiphile Senior Member Join Date: December 13, 2005 Posts: 4,454	I didn't take your response as a dismissal. I only note a difference between: 1. "I detest people from Indiana so throroughly that it would be difficult for me to decide anything about a person from Indiana without injecting my bias.", and 2. "He held that the man owed federal income tax on the income distributed to him under the trust, but that was just an excuse to act on his bias against people from Indiana". It's the difference between revealing an affection or antipathy of one's own, a matter about which one can assume he has knowledge, and an accusation that someone else's reasoning is mere pretext. __________________ http://www.npboards.com/index.php

June 21, 2016, 07:12 PM	#130
rickyrick Senior Member Join Date: March 15, 2010 Posts: 8,237	The Bill of Rights. The founders knew that governments throughout history desire to limit individual freedom. They knew that officials will eventually try to deny rights; the act of denial may not even be the intention of some of the politicians. Denial of rights can also be intentional. No matter what the antigun politicians say, they would like to eliminate civilian firearm ownership. The sound bites fool some, but to us who pay attention, we see right through it. The perfect example of this is: anytime new gun control legislation is enacted, the victory speech includes "this is an important first step"

June 21, 2016, 11:37 PM	#131
5whiskey Senior Member Join Date: October 23, 2005 Location: US Posts: 3,657	^^^Rickyrick you hit it. The founders envisioned a government that would eventually attempt to deny rights. This is why I despise the casual flinging of the word "democracy" in any form of debate. A true democracy in and of itself is not evil, but it is subject to the whims of "mob rule" during times of panic and crisis. A true democracy is where 51% of the populace can vote to execute the other 49%, for whatever reason they deem appropriate. Obviously the United States is not a democracy, but a republic. I understand that most people may say democracy when they in earnest mean a republic, or at least a constitutional democracy, but it still irritates me. Mob rule is real. There are some in the media actually calling for a repeal of the 2nd amendment because of recent events. In normal times they would be deemed an extreme fringe and all but the most extreme sympathizers would shut down 10 seconds into the article, saying "we can't do that." Now? They can expose their fringe views to many more people who no longer say "we can't do that," but instead ask " why can't we do that if it would make us safer. After all science says it would." Were we a democracy, that didn't afford basic human rights protection, then guys in raid vests would be going from door to door to confiscate guns right now. Actually it probably would've happened years ago already. Its not just politicians, though don't get me wrong I can't think of one that I would trust with virtually anything, but its also the media who is also complicit and responsible. And average citizens who consume media blindly.