The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right!

Radar · 05-19-2008, 10:06 AM

http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...8.story?page=1

I'm happy that they will be ruling in favor of individual rights over government powers for a change (as they are supposed to do), though I take umbrage at the claim that the government has the authority to place "reasonable restrictions" on those rights. No governmental restriction of our rights is reasonable. The only valid limitation on our rights is the equal rights of others.

The people have an unlimited right to have any weapon they can honestly acquire, in any number, with any type of ammunition.

Merely owning a gun or a million guns does nothing to endanger others. Owning a fully automatic machine gun does nothing to endanger others. Owning a nuke might, but if one can prove that they can store it safely and securely without any nuclear energy leaks, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to build one or have one.

Individual people have a right to own any weapon the government has, if not more.

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-22-2008, 02:23 AM

The rights of others, yes. Vide Ringer's Paradox: A right restricted is a right preserved. It does not greatly matter who does the restricting, as long as the restriction is kept to the minimum necessary to preserve.

deadbeater · 05-22-2008, 11:47 AM

Yay for pocket nukes!!

TheMercenary · 05-22-2008, 03:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by deadbeater

Yay for pocket nukes!!

Damm, where does it say that? I want one.

Happy Monkey · 05-22-2008, 11:56 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Radar

Merely owning a gun or a million guns does nothing to endanger others. Owning a fully automatic machine gun does nothing to endanger others. Owning a nuke might, but if one can prove that they can store it safely and securely without any nuclear energy leaks, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to build one or have one.

That sounds like a reasonable restriction to me.

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-23-2008, 12:15 PM

The darn things will tear your pocket right off, though -- setting a new, and lower, sartorial standard. Heavy futhermuckers, particularly the uranium-cased ones.

It is both easy and well understood how to use a gun as designed and intended to be used in a moral fashion. But using a nuke for its designed and intended purpose in a moral fashion is ever so much harder.

Aerial bombs, high explosive shells, and armed guided missiles, ground- or air-launched, fall at various places in the middle of this spectrum.

Cogitate and discuss.

xoxoxoBruce · 05-24-2008, 10:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

Heavy futhermuckers, particularly the uranium-cased ones.

Maybe that's why those gangbangers have their pants hanging off their butts?

Flint · 05-23-2008, 02:13 PM

I'm struggling with the concept that the main danger of a nuclear weapon is that it might be contained under unsafe conditions. More troublesome, to me, would be the consequences if the device were used for it's only intended purpose.* I think it is a reasonable function of the government to regulate the possession of anything that could wipe out millions of people with the push of a button.

* Although I suppose one could use the argument that a possessing a nuclear weapon is a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the intended use could be construed as "to prevent my neighbor from using his against me" ...but somehow that doesn't sound like a safe situuation to me.

TheMercenary · 05-23-2008, 02:25 PM

Well MAD has seemed to work to this point. I suspect we are going to see a renewed sense of uneasiness as Iran gets the bomb given that their govenment has gone on record as threatening Israel with destruction.

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-26-2008, 03:35 AM

I always thought it might make them easier to take down in a foot pursuit and arrest. So far though that's not as well documented as the guy with the flashing sneakers that tried to run away from the cops across a darkened field. His feet would have had to flash a lot faster than they did.

I hold the same misgivings Flint does, and agree with Merc too. It has worked, with nations anyway. You have to rejigger MAD to work on terrorist groups that don't have a nation to lose and are banking on massive revanchism if a terror-enabling nation gets nuked in retaliation. It would require destroying the terrorists before they can implement a nuke plot. Call it Unilateral Assured Destruction.

TheMercenary · 05-26-2008, 09:26 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Urbane Guerrilla

I always thought it might make them easier to take down in a foot pursuit and arrest. So far though that's not as well documented as the guy with the flashing sneakers that tried to run away from the cops across a darkened field. His feet would have had to flash a lot faster than they did.

I hold the same misgivings Flint does, and agree with Merc too. It has worked, with nations anyway. You have to rejigger MAD to work on terrorist groups that don't have a nation to lose and are banking on massive revanchism if a terror-enabling nation gets nuked in retaliation. It would require destroying the terrorists before they can implement a nuke plot. Call it Unilateral Assured Destruction.

I have always said that until you treat them with the same ruthlessness that they have shown you be unable to change their behavior. Anywhere, anytime.

Flint · 05-26-2008, 09:29 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TheMercenary

I have always said that until you treat them with the same ruthlessness that they have shown you be unable to change their behavior. Anywhere, anytime.

Blatant Devil's Advocate here, but, can you teach your kids not to hit people by spanking them?

TheMercenary · 05-27-2008, 06:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Flint

Blatant Devil's Advocate here, but, can you teach your kids not to hit people by spanking them?

That is a very poor comparison. First we love our children. Second I can reason with them. Third they are not trying to kill me, yet.

Comparing how you modify the behavior of your children with how to respond to violent acts of a terrorist is just a bit crazy.

Urbane Guerrilla · 05-27-2008, 12:15 AM

Yes, of course: they get a chance to see how they like it.

deadbeater · 05-27-2008, 01:39 PM

Guerrilla, what if they expect to be spanked, or killed, and so resort to doing the spanking or killing themselves first, before they get themselves spanked or killed? Getting their licks first, so to speak. I said hooray for pocket nukes, because the pro-gunners can't even imagine the consequences of a no gun law society.

05-19-2008, 10:06 AM	#1
Radar Constitutional Scholar Join Date: Dec 2002 Location: Ocala, FL Posts: 4,006	The Supreme Court May Finally Do Something Right! http://www.latimes.com/news/nationwo...8.story?page=1 I'm happy that they will be ruling in favor of individual rights over government powers for a change (as they are supposed to do), though I take umbrage at the claim that the government has the authority to place "reasonable restrictions" on those rights. No governmental restriction of our rights is reasonable. The only valid limitation on our rights is the equal rights of others. The people have an unlimited right to have any weapon they can honestly acquire, in any number, with any type of ammunition. Merely owning a gun or a million guns does nothing to endanger others. Owning a fully automatic machine gun does nothing to endanger others. Owning a nuke might, but if one can prove that they can store it safely and securely without any nuclear energy leaks, there's no reason they shouldn't be able to build one or have one. Individual people have a right to own any weapon the government has, if not more. __________________ "I'm completely in favor of the separation of Church and State. My idea is that these two institutions screw us up enough on their own, so both of them together is certain death." - George Carlin

05-22-2008, 02:23 AM	#2
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	The rights of others, yes. Vide Ringer's Paradox: A right restricted is a right preserved. It does not greatly matter who does the restricting, as long as the restriction is kept to the minimum necessary to preserve. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-23-2008, 12:15 PM	#6
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	The darn things will tear your pocket right off, though -- setting a new, and lower, sartorial standard. Heavy futhermuckers, particularly the uranium-cased ones. It is both easy and well understood how to use a gun as designed and intended to be used in a moral fashion. But using a nuke for its designed and intended purpose in a moral fashion is ever so much harder. Aerial bombs, high explosive shells, and armed guided missiles, ground- or air-launched, fall at various places in the middle of this spectrum. Cogitate and discuss. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-23-2008, 02:13 PM	#8
Flint Snowflake Join Date: Mar 2006 Location: Dystopia Posts: 13,136	I'm struggling with the concept that the main danger of a nuclear weapon is that it might be contained under unsafe conditions. More troublesome, to me, would be the consequences if the device were used for it's only intended purpose.* I think it is a reasonable function of the government to regulate the possession of anything that could wipe out millions of people with the push of a button. * Although I suppose one could use the argument that a possessing a nuclear weapon is a deterrent against the use of nuclear weapons. Thus the intended use could be construed as "to prevent my neighbor from using his against me" ...but somehow that doesn't sound like a safe situuation to me. __________________ **************** There's a level of facility that everyone needs to accomplish, and from there it's a matter of deciding for yourself how important ultra-facility is to your expression. ... I found, like Joseph Campbell said, if you just follow whatever gives you a little joy or excitement or awe, then you're on the right track. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Terry Bozzio**

05-23-2008, 02:25 PM	#9
TheMercenary “Hypocrisy: prejudice with a halo” Join Date: Mar 2007 Location: Savannah, Georgia Posts: 21,393	Well MAD has seemed to work to this point. I suspect we are going to see a renewed sense of uneasiness as Iran gets the bomb given that their govenment has gone on record as threatening Israel with destruction. __________________ Anyone but the this most fuked up President in History in 2012!

05-22-2008, 11:47 AM	#3
deadbeater Sir Post-A-Lot Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 439	Yay for pocket nukes!!

05-26-2008, 03:35 AM	#10
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	I always thought it might make them easier to take down in a foot pursuit and arrest. So far though that's not as well documented as the guy with the flashing sneakers that tried to run away from the cops across a darkened field. His feet would have had to flash a lot faster than they did. I hold the same misgivings Flint does, and agree with Merc too. It has worked, with nations anyway. You have to rejigger MAD to work on terrorist groups that don't have a nation to lose and are banking on massive revanchism if a terror-enabling nation gets nuked in retaliation. It would require destroying the terrorists before they can implement a nuke plot. Call it Unilateral Assured Destruction. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-27-2008, 12:15 AM	#14
Urbane Guerrilla Person who doesn't update the user title Join Date: Jul 2002 Location: Southern California Posts: 6,674	Yes, of course: they get a chance to see how they like it. __________________ Wanna stop school shootings? End Gun-Free Zones, of course.

05-27-2008, 01:39 PM	#15
deadbeater Sir Post-A-Lot Join Date: Dec 2006 Posts: 439	Guerrilla, what if they expect to be spanked, or killed, and so resort to doing the spanking or killing themselves first, before they get themselves spanked or killed? Getting their licks first, so to speak. I said hooray for pocket nukes, because the pro-gunners can't even imagine the consequences of a no gun law society.

Currently Active Users Viewing This Thread: 1 (0 members and 1 guests)