Uvalde - the followup

[sear]

"Since gun rights are not only 2nd amendment, but primary to defense of life, liberty, and pursuit of happiness, it seems wrong to deny gun rights over a misdemeanor?
Should a bank guard lose his job over a domestic violence misdemeanor?" R5 #320

The right to keep & bear arms may be a subset / component of the Liberty right.
It is a Founding principle of the United States of America that Liberty is a:
- Creator endowed
- Constitutionally enumerated *
- unalienable right.

This becomes a "where do you draw the line" issue, somewhere between megalomaniac Hitler, and litterer Steve.
The complication:
when governing a population of hundreds of millions, wherever the line is drawn will be too severe for some, and not severe enough for others.

I've recounted the anecdote several times, seems appropriate here:
Conversing near the parts counter at the motorcycle dealership I noticed the product on the counter,
a brand new handlebar-mount rear view mirror still attached to its retail marketing cardboard placard with the word "UNIVERSAL" emblazoned across it.
My salesman explained "Universal means it doesn't fit anything."

It's an insight that has served me well.
Setting the minimum drinking age at 18 for example, premised on the idea that before the 18th birthday citizens aren't mature enough
ignores the fact that no two citizens mature at exactly the same rate.
It's a "one size fits all" standard in law in context of the fact it actually fits almost no one.

Just one of the complications of administering justice to a population of hundreds of millions.

* The word Liberty is not found within the main body of the Constitution, until the 5th Amendment. BUT !
The word Liberty does appear in the Constitution's Preamble, which some scholars consider to be a
"spirit of the law" introduction to our "letter of the law" Constitution.

 

[Rigby5]

The right to keep & bear arms may be a subset / component of the Liberty right.
It is a Founding principle of the United States of America that Liberty is a:
- Creator endowed
- Constitutionally enumerated *
- unalienable right.

This becomes a "where do you draw the line" issue, somewhere between megalomaniac Hitler, and litterer Steve.
The complication:
when governing a population of hundreds of millions, wherever the line is drawn will be too severe for some, and not severe enough for others.

I've recounted the anecdote several times, seems appropriate here:
Conversing near the parts counter at the motorcycle dealership I noticed the product on the counter,
a brand new handlebar-mount rear view mirror still attached to its retail marketing cardboard placard with the word "UNIVERSAL" emblazoned across it.
My salesman explained "Universal means it doesn't fit anything."

It's an insight that has served me well.
Setting the minimum drinking age at 18 for example, premised on the idea that before the 18th birthday citizens aren't mature enough
ignores the fact that no two citizens mature at exactly the same rate.
It's a "one size fits all" standard in law in context of the fact it actually fits almost no one.

Just one of the complications of administering justice to a population of hundreds of millions.

* The word Liberty is not found within the main body of the Constitution, until the 5th Amendment. BUT !
The word Liberty does appear in the Constitution's Preamble, which some scholars consider to be a
"spirit of the law" introduction to our "letter of the law" Constitution.

Since this country was founded by an armed civilian rebellion, it kind of makes armed citizens essential our existence as a democratic republic.

The misdemeanor domestic abuse charge also is not proof of the person being a danger, since it could not have been a lethal act or the charge would have been a felony instead.
And in fact, most domestic violence situations share some mutual guilt.

And the real question is whether or not the judge in the domestic abuse case was aware and intended for the armed professional to lose his job?
By passing this bill now, then it is after the fact and will cause job loses the judges never intended.
It essentially has legislators passing sentence generically instead of a judge who heard all the specific facts.
And in fact I find all attempts at mandatory sentencing to be inherently illegal.

 

[sear]

"And the real question is whether or not the judge in the domestic abuse case was aware and intended for the armed professional to lose his job?" R5

"The fact that Americans speak about "legalizing" abortion, gambling, marijuana, and so forth shows that they no longer look down on their government as their servant
but look up to it as their master.
For to legalize is to permit; and to permit implies a relationship between a superior and a subordinate - as when a parent permits a child to go swimming, stay up late, or eat sweets after his meal." psychiatrist Thomas Szasz MD

 

[Rigby5]

"The fact that Americans speak about "legalizing" abortion, gambling, marijuana, and so forth shows that they no longer look down on their government as their servant
but look up to it as their master.
For to legalize is to permit; and to permit implies a relationship between a superior and a subordinate - as when a parent permits a child to go swimming, stay up late, or eat sweets after his meal." psychiatrist Thomas Szasz MD

I agree and the government never should have been allowed the authority over abortion, gambling, marijuana, alcohol, immigration, Iranian nukes, etc.

 

[sear]

#323

Szasz, a sensible guy.

"I agree and the government never should have been allowed the authority over abortion, gambling, marijuana, alcohol, immigration, Iranian nukes, etc." R5 #324

"The policy of the American government is to leave their citizens free, neither restraining nor aiding them in their pursuits." Thomas Jefferson

"gambling":
The problem with gambling is not the friendly game with men male-bonding in a smoke-filled room once a month.
It's the compulsive personality that first gambles away his earnings, and then compounds his problem by gambling more in hope of winning it back.
The problem?
When he then gets his legs broken, it becomes government's job to tidy up.
And it's easier for government to simply outlaw it, than to mop up when it goes wrong.

"alcohol":
The problem is not the small glass of wine at the banquet table.
The problem is the bottle of Ripple in the grip of the derelict behind the dumpster.
Will he get rolled?
Will he pass out and freeze to death?
Will he assault a passerby, an attempted robbery?

"Iranian nukes":
We already had a glimpse of what nuclear blackmail is like.
Putin suggested Russia might use nukes to protect / defend the territory it occupies in Ukraine.
The risk of Iranian nukes include potentially cataclysmic nuclear blackmail, potentially ending the human race.

 

[Rigby5]

Szasz, a sensible guy.



"gambling":
The problem with gambling is not the friendly game with men male-bonding in a smoke-filled room once a month.
It's the compulsive personality that first gambles away his earnings, and then compounds his problem by gambling more in hope of winning it back.
The problem?
When he then gets his legs broken, it becomes government's job to tidy up.
And it's easier for government to simply outlaw it, than to mop up when it goes wrong.

"alcohol":
The problem is not the small glass of wine at the banquet table.
The problem is the bottle of Ripple in the grip of the derelict behind the dumpster.
Will he get rolled?
Will he pass out and freeze to death?
Will he assault a passerby, an attempted robbery?

"Iranian nukes":
We already had a glimpse of what nuclear blackmail is like.
Putin suggested Russia might use nukes to protect / defend the territory it occupies in Ukraine.
The risk of Iranian nukes include potentially cataclysmic nuclear blackmail, potentially ending the human race.

Whether or not it would be better without gambling, alcohol, or Iranian nukes, that is beyond the authority of a democratic republic.

Gambling and alcohol are actually just medical problems the police are totally unable to deal with at all.
And both Russia and the Iran have the right to nuke the US after the crimes we committed.
If you are following the video from the Ukraine, there are huge protest against Zelensky.
The US created one of the worst dictatorships in the world with the 2014 Maidan Coup.

You can also find lots of videos of press gangs kidnapping teens in the Ukraine, and the violence by the parents to stop them.

 

[sear]

"Whether or not it would be better without gambling, alcohol, or Iranian nukes, that is beyond the authority of a democratic republic." R5 #326

Splendid.
What's the alternative?
Allow global malefactors to plot total global cataclysmic genocide, because it "is beyond the authority of a democratic republic" to preserve constructive prosperity for over 8 Billion with a B humans?

If you're standing on the dock, and you see a helpless child splashing furiously in the water, drowning, would you shrug and walk away, because you are not the duly appointed life-guard on duty at that moment at that location?

Sometimes R5, duty falls to the one that can, whether they have the formal "authority" or not.
Do you really, sincerely believe the U.S. should stand on ceremony, on formality, and knowingly allow humanity to cross a nuclear or doomsday Rubicon, because though it has the capacity, the ability to forestall planetary genocide, the U.S. does not have the "authority"?
Taking that (your) position prioritizes process as more important than result. ... Everybody died, BUT at least we followed the rules ! ... ?!?!?!

 

[Rigby5]

Splendid.
What's the alternative?
Allow global malefactors to plot total global cataclysmic genocide, because it "is beyond the authority of a democratic republic" to preserve constructive prosperity for over 8 Billion with a B humans?

If you're standing on the dock, and you see a helpless child splashing furiously in the water, drowning, would you shrug and walk away, because you are not the duly appointed life-guard on duty at that moment at that location?

Sometimes R5, duty falls to the one that can, whether they have the formal "authority" or not.
Do you really, sincerely believe the U.S. should stand on ceremony, on formality, and knowingly allow humanity to cross a nuclear or doomsday Rubicon, because though it has the capacity, the ability to forestall planetary genocide, the U.S. does not have the "authority"?
Taking that (your) position prioritizes process as more important than result. ... Everybody died, BUT at least we followed the rules ! ... ?!?!?!

This is not deciding to help out a drowning child.
This is deliberate murder of hundreds of innocent people when we blew up the Ayatollah, including his wife.
Nor can it possibly succeed, since there is absolutely no way to prevent Iran or anyone, from secretly building nukes.
All this murdering does is force even more countries to build nukes, and then they will have no choice but to destroy the US as the ones who are incompatible with civilized life.
Murdering the Ayatollah and his wife is exactly the definition of illegal terrorism, something Iran has never done themselves.
What the US did can never be allowed.
It is the single worst possible war crime.
This is especially true since somehow Obama had gotten the Iranians to stop enriching for 15 years.
Which proves that Iran is not the problem.

 

[sear]

"This is not deciding to help out a drowning child.
This is deliberate murder of hundreds of innocent people when we blew up the Ayatollah, including his wife." R5 #328

If you're citing the current Trump / Netanyahu War on Iran, I agree. I do not endorse it. I oppose it. The current headlines about it, whatever they may be, are reason enough for my unreserved opposition to this War.

Instead, I rather more endorse the Obama administration's JCPOA we implemented with Iran, Britain, France, Germany, China, & Russia.

"Nor can it possibly succeed, since there is absolutely no way to prevent Iran or anyone, from secretly building nukes." R5 #328

So you may claim. BUT !
Those that negotiated the JCPOA, Britain, France, Germany, China, & Russia apparently believe otherwise.
Not clear to me what you think you know that you think they didn't.
But however resourceful your perspective may seem, I think it unlikely that you are right, and the world-class experts and international negotiators of these 7 nations are all wrong. Possible.
Unlikely.

"It is the single worst possible war crime." R5 #328

It's bad. I see no benefit to quibbling superlatives,
beyond acknowledging that Trump habitually expresses himself in superlatives, and is very frequently wrong as a result.

"Which proves that Iran is not the problem." R5 #328

It may be evidence Iran is not the sole provocateur.
It does not elevate Iran to choirboy status.
Numerous corroborating reports from a wide variety of sources cite Iran as supporter of violence groups such as the Houthis.

The Houthis,[d] officially known as Ansar Allah,[e] is a Zaydi[a] revivalist and Shia Islamist political and military organization that emerged from Yemen in the 1990s. It is predominantly made up of Zaydis, whose namesake leadership is drawn largely from the al-Houthi family.[94] The Houthis are backed by Iran,[95][96][97] and they are widely considered part of the Iranian-led "Axis of Resistance".[95][98] The group has been a central player in Yemen's civil war, drawing widespread international condemnation for its human rights abuses, including targeting civilians[99][100] and allegedly using child soldiers.[101]

Houthis - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org