• This is a political forum that is non-biased/non-partisan and treats every person's position on topics equally. This debate forum is not aligned to any political party. In today's politics, many ideas are split between and even within all the political parties. Often we find ourselves agreeing on one platform but some topics break our mold. We are here to discuss them in a civil political debate. If this is your first visit to our political forums, be sure to check out the RULES. Registering for debate politics is necessary before posting. Register today to participate - it's free!

Liberal Senator Didn't Want To Hear 'Constitutional Arguments' During Gun Hearing

Paleocon said:
There are many many things that go into proper public policy decisions. It is not reducible to just the constitution or any othe document. Because human language is inherently finite, it is not possible to lay out an exhaustible list of every possible consideration that should go into it.
Click to expand...

While I am quite sure any and perhaps all things could be argued in such a fashion, it is certainly not the manner in which one can ever really arrive at a commonly agreed upon resolution. Its like the concept of dividing in half the distance from one particular point to another. One can infinitely divide those distances and, theoretically, you will never arrive.

But in the real world we need to and we do arrive. The genius of our founding fathers was to give us this nice concise funnel, our Constitution, through which all those infinite possibilities must first pass. Its like the mouth of the human digestive system, there are an almost infinite varieties of foods, drugs, beverages, etc...we might consume with no bite, sip or tablet really ever being exactly the same as another...it first passes through the mouth and into the digestive system to be converted into either excrement or energy. In the case of our Constitution it is either considered unconstitutional or it is Constitutional... and if Constitutional it is commonly agreed upon as good/positive for the body corpus, We the People.

You may use all kinds of other criteria for making decisions, science, opinions and culture are in a constant state of flux, but they still must, fortunately, first pass muster under our Constitution.

Amen.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
While I am quite sure any and perhaps all things could be argued in such a fashion, it is certainly not the manner in which one can ever really arrive at a commonly agreed upon resolution. Its like the concept of dividing in half the distance from one particular point to another. One can infinitely divide those distances and, theoretically, you will never arrive.
Click to expand...

Which is of course the problem with democracy, and why the people should not get a say in government.
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
She has a point; arguing on the basis of the Constitution is nothing more than an appeal to authority. It tells us, ideally, what the government can't do but not what it shouldn't do.
Click to expand...

umm the constitution I the authority there is no appeal to it at all.
yes and it says the government cannot infringe on the rights of the people to bear arms.

that means it shouldn't infringe on that right or are you another person that doesn't know what
the 2nd amendment means either?

in fact just recently a federal appeals court ruled that marylands ban on semi-automatic rifles is
unconstitutional.
 
Paleocon said:
Arguably so, but it is (ordinarily) harmful to the common good to abruptly change an established custom without a grave reason. So it would not be prudent for the courts to strike down all federal firearms laws.

P.S. does this mean you think federal courts should leave the states be?
Click to expand...

Would you disagree that laws are only as good as their enforcement mechanisms?

If federal firearms violations are rarely enforced and criminals are criminals precisely because by definition they do not strictly obey our laws, these often well intentioned laws are really only deterring law abiding citizens from potential ownership.

Speaking of grave reasons, it is not out of the realm of possibility that had someone at the Sandyhook School or the theater in Colorado or any number of gun-free, easy-to-kill-many-innocents type 'zones', had someone had an opposing gun many graves of those innocents might still be awaiting their occupants for many good years to come.

And in my own humble opinion, I think yes, the federal courts should only have jurisdiction in the areas where it is specifically allowed under the Constitution. Education, marriage, etc... many areas now pontificated upon by the federal courts were meant to be left up to the states and to the people.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Would you disagree that laws are only as good as their enforcement mechanisms?
Click to expand...

Certainly.

If federal firearms violations are rarely enforced and criminals are criminals precisely because by definition they do not strictly obey our laws, these often well intentioned laws are really only deterring law abiding citizens from potential ownership.
Click to expand...

I would agree that our current laws are ridiculously unenforced. That should change.

Speaking of grave reasons, it is not out of the realm of possibility that had someone at the Sandyhook School or the theater in Colorado or any number of gun-free, easy-to-kill-many-innocents type 'zones', had someone had an opposing gun many graves of those innocents might still be awaiting their occupants for many good years to come.
Click to expand...

I do think that "gun-free" zones should have armed law enforcement or security present.

And in my own humble opinion, I think yes, the federal courts should only have jurisdiction in the areas where it is specifically allowed under the Constitution. Education, marriage, etc... many areas now pontificated upon by the federal courts were meant to be left up to the states and to the people.
Click to expand...

I would agree that federal courts are far too activist. But legislative power and judicial power are not the same and should not be exercised the same.
 
Paleocon said:
Which is of course the problem with democracy, and why the people should not get a say in government.
Click to expand...
While you may consider that statement to be sublime, I consider it ridiculous. Being as there is no perfect system within the human realm, I agree with Churchill on democracy. Might you elucidate your reasons for such a seemingly absurd statement and what might be your better and logical/reasonable alternative?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
While you may consider that statement to be sublime, I consider it ridiculous. Being as there is no perfect system within the human realm, I agree with Churchill on democracy. Might you elucidate your reasons for such a seemingly absurd statement and what might be your better and logical/reasonable alternative?
Click to expand...

Obviously there is no perfect system of government. That's why systems designed to bring about "freedom", "liberty", or the like are doomed to dystopia.

The most natural form of government is monarchy, and the relevant practical benefit is that it doesn't require convincing the masses for legislation (and by the same token, the media can't effect the law through control of public opinion).

And Churchill's comment is only convincing to people who already agree with his premise that non-democratic government is bad.
 
Paleocon said:
Certainly.

I would agree that our current laws are ridiculously unenforced. That should change.

I do think that "gun-free" zones should have armed law enforcement or security present.
Click to expand...
Well, until they start enforcing the laws with vigor, I would say they need to be openly lax on citizens legally carrying guns. This will give potential perpetrators some pause before they just expect formerly gun free zones to be easy kills zones. I like that in Switzerland every adult male of military age is required to have an automatic weapon at home; does wonders for deterring home robberies, rapes, etc...

Who is going to pay for all this additional armed security? I would not even know how to calculate how many locations prohibit guns, but would have to think the number monumental.


Paleocon said:
I would agree that federal courts are far too activist. But legislative power and judicial power are not the same and should not be exercised the same.
Click to expand...
Indubitably. But Federal Courts should be limited to ruling on those specific areas of power allowed under those enumerated in the Constitution.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Who is going to pay for all this additional armed security? I would not even know how to calculate how many locations prohibit guns, but would have to think the number monumental.
Click to expand...

In my opinion if an institution can't afford it, they shouldn't ban guns on the premises.

Indubitably. But Federal Courts should be limited to ruling on those specific areas of power allowed under those enumerated in the Constitution.
Click to expand...

I'd agree that they need to be limited.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
While you may consider that statement to be sublime, I consider it ridiculous. Being as there is no perfect system within the human realm, I agree with Churchill on democracy. Might you elucidate your reasons for such a seemingly absurd statement and what might be your better and logical/reasonable alternative?
Click to expand...

Don't be bother he is Christofascism.
 
Paleocon said:
Obviously there is no perfect system of government. That's why systems designed to bring about "freedom", "liberty", or the like are doomed to dystopia.

The most natural form of government is monarchy, and the relevant practical benefit is that it doesn't require convincing the masses for legislation (and by the same token, the media can't effect the law through control of public opinion).

And Churchill's comment is only convincing to people who already agree with his premise that non-democratic government is bad.
Click to expand...

And monarchies brought about utopias? I think not. If you consider the lives of the kings of two hundred, even a hundred years past, even our fairly poor individuals are better off in most circumstances and in most of the countries that have democracies which utilize the capitalistic economic system. If humanity had continued living under such rulers we would still have traditional economies wherein there is no room for innovation, you become what your parent was, fisherman, farmer, fisherman or farmers wives, etc... mostly dirt eating poor folk and even kings did not have as comfortable a ride, buggies and horses that dump their excrement wherever they please, horses that die and were left to rot in the city streets, streets strewn with human excrement dumped out the windows. Even poor people under the current system can have decently reliable, smooth riding cars with air-conditioning, or heating as the need may be, generally can eat as well or better than kings did, are more apt to live longer, I mean what would have then been considered utopia under kings has been far surpassed by almost standard of living in democracies, and by almost everybody.

The technology you and I are currently using, me from the high mountains of Panama, you wherever you happen to be, would not even have been dreamed of by now had we maintained your natural form of governments, the monarchies.

We actually have so much, maybe too much, we can sit around and have the leisure time to think about how dissatisfied we are with the abundance that is all about us.

Give me, if you would, an example of where our "doomed ro dystopia" comes close to rivaling even the best under a monarchy.

Churchill had a self-evident argument that requires little if any persuasion to those of us who have considered the alternatives... perhaps you can be more convincing with your premise?
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
And monarchies brought about utopias? I think not.
Click to expand...

No, they are distinctly non-utopian. That was the point.

If you consider the lives of the kings of two hundred, even a hundred years past, even our fairly poor individuals are better off in most circumstances and in most of the countries that have democracies which utilize the capitalistic economic system. If humanity had continued living under such rulers we would still have traditional economies wherein there is no room for innovation, you become what your parent was, fisherman, farmer, fisherman or farmers wives, etc... mostly dirt eating poor folk and even kings did not have as comfortable a ride, buggies and horses that dump their excrement wherever they please, horses that die and were left to rot in the city streets, streets strewn with human excrement dumped out the windows. Even poor people under the current system can have decently reliable, smooth riding cars with air-conditioning, or heating as the need may be, generally can eat as well or better than kings did, are more apt to live longer, I mean what would have then been considered utopia under kings has been far surpassed by almost standard of living in democracies, and by almost everybody.

The technology you and I are currently using, me from the high mountains of Panama, you wherever you happen to be, would not even have been dreamed of by now had we maintained your natural form of governments, the monarchies.

We actually have so much, maybe too much, we can sit around and have the leisure time to think about how dissatisfied we are with the abundance that is all about us.

Give me, if you would, an example of where our "doomed ro dystopia" comes close to rivaling even the best under a monarchy.
Click to expand...

Traditional economies were better. While nice, I don't consider having the latest iPhone the pinnacle of human existence.

They had more small business, and had laws against predatory practices like usury.

Churchill had a self-evident argument that requires little if any persuasion to those of us who have considered the alternatives... perhaps you can be more convincing with your premise?
Click to expand...

"Feces are the worst thing to eat, except for all of the other things that have been eaten"

It's only convincing if you already accept the premise.
 
Paleocon said:
No, they are distinctly non-utopian. That was the point.



Traditional economies were better. While nice, I don't consider having the latest iPhone the pinnacle of human existence.

They had more small business, and had laws against predatory practices like usury.



"Feces are the worst thing to eat, except for all of the other things that have been eaten"

It's only convincing if you already accept the premise.
Click to expand...
Well,

if you truly mean that the traditional economies are nicer, you know there are third world countries that mimic that kind of existence, where class wide poverty is still in vogue. Its there that you can probably get that feces sandwich it appears you aspire to.

However I am going to assume you will not anytime soon be tossing the phone, car and computer, however dated they may be, nor go back to eating very traditional [boring and repetitive] meals, maybe experiencing some starvation, no running nor necessarily clean water, no electricity, and being at the whim of the ruler who did not achieve his/her stature of being all powerful... but only inherited it, with whatever skills they might have and through lack of necessity do not have to make any attempt to improve, who have absolute power, the kind that has no counterbalancing to its corruption absolutely, small businesses because they cannot grow through limited opportunity for education besides that of learning from you father or mother, uncle or aunt...blah blah blah...

You do already seem to have instilled that trait of old styled societies, being stuck in your ways... If such a worthy intellect as Churchill cannot convince, I am sure I am not up to the task...
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
Well,

if you truly mean that the traditional economies are nicer, you know there are third world countries that mimic that kind of existence, where class wide poverty is still in vogue. Its there that you can probably get that feces sandwich it appears you aspire to.

However I am going to assume you will not anytime soon be tossing the phone, car and computer, however dated they may be, nor go back to eating very traditional [boring and repetitive] meals, maybe experiencing some starvation, no running nor necessarily clean water, no electricity, and being at the whim of the ruler who did not achieve his/her stature of being all powerful... but only inherited it, with whatever skills they might have and through lack of necessity do not have to make any attempt to improve, who have absolute power, the kind that has no counterbalancing to its corruption absolutely, small businesses because they cannot grow through limited opportunity for education besides that of learning from you father or mother, uncle or aunt...blah blah blah...

You do already seem to have instilled that trait of old styled societies, being stuck in your ways... If such a worthy intellect as Churchill cannot convince, I am sure I am not up to the task...
Click to expand...

First of all, unlike you j don't consider expatriation a valid response to things not being as they should in one's country.

Second of all; your view of monarchy is heavily slanted by strawmen. Medieval kings for instance were limited by both the aristocracy and the Church. And they were trained from birth in how to rule.

And your goings on about electricity and clean water are complete red herrings. They have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.
 
Thrilla said:
makes perfect sense.... the last thing gun control supporters want to entertain is the Constitution.

this is a bit more troubling, for the fact that she's a US senator who is bound by oath to support and uphold the Constitutions.. but meh, that's just an oath, and the Constitution isn't very important anyways.
Click to expand...

It's an obstacle that needs to be removed. Always has been and always will be and the only thing in the way is the people who's right it forces on government. When the people give up enforcing it on government it will go.
 
Paleocon said:
First of all, unlike you j don't consider expatriation a valid response to things not being as they should in one's country.

Second of all; your view of monarchy is heavily slanted by strawmen. Medieval kings for instance were limited by both the aristocracy and the Church. And they were trained from birth in how to rule.

And your goings on about electricity and clean water are complete red herrings. They have nothing at all to do with the subject at hand.
Click to expand...
Actually, first of all, my becoming an expat was started by falling in love with Latin America on a surf trip to Costa Rica in the 1980s... I have been planning this adventure for quite a while, and it is an adventure, every day. Obama and his wrecking of our system of proper governance, our social structures, our economy, our military, our borders, our faith in the system, health care, along with the abrogation of their proper function by our Supreme and federal courts, those just happen to coincide with me happily saying hasta luego to North America. I still passionately love my country, its one of the main reasons why I have just recently come back to this site, to argue for it.

I have degrees in both Political Science and History, taught both and economics for 17 years... There are no strawmen put forward, but since you say there are, give me the instance in which the Monarchy, without the aristocracy, the Church, a parliament, made significant improvements in living standards of the majority of their people on anywhere near the scale of democracy combined with escape from traditional economy by the embracement of capitalism... all the while protecting their people from outside encroachment.

You cannot do it, but I challenge you in any event.

Often they, the newly born and young ostensible absolute rulers, were controlled by regents who were special interest agents of the rich and powerful. Many were just simply ill equipped naturally to ever rule, no matter the amount of training. Then you have your Genghis Khan types, in complete control without much interference from religion or others, who regularly just massively slaughtered folks on a scale unimaginable until maybe China in the Taiping rebellion or at the hands of the absolute rulers of the 20th century, Hitler, Mao, Stalin. Besides which, even if medieval monarchies were hampered by outside influences, that's a part of the system that the Monarchial system obviously was not able to overcome.

Your characterization of my strawmen are the facts of history, during the time of the nascence of modern democracies, along side them there were still those Monarchies of the world. What is the reality that comes with Monarchy are those traditional economies I described as opposed to what we have realized with our much improved, however still flawed, system. Sure, Monarchies built the pyramids, amazing structures, but at what human costs... and they each and every one have all since pretty much faded into now being relics of history, to be studied and improved upon.
 
Last edited:
Casper said:
Throwing the Constitution in the trash heap for the sake of expediency, not exactly what the Founders envisioned. if the woman was my Rep I would do Everything in my power to let People know that if a Representative of The People is willing to throw out one part of the Constitution they will be willing to do the same for others to fulfill their own agenda. People that think this way are the most dangerous threat to the Freedoms we all enjoy and is the path way to totalitarian government. Best to stop them in the beginning. Hopefully her career as a Politician will come to an end soon, with people like her we do not need enemies.
Click to expand...

Unfortunately, she and her type are exactly the type people Marylanders want making their laws. The majority of Maryland voters wanted her and her ways. If they stay there, you just know more crap is coming down the chute.

FORTUNATELY, there are 43 other states to choose from, if you leave out NY, CA, CT, MA, RI, & IL.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
And those are your opinions, ;) ha ha ha.

Seeing as our Constitution is THE framework for our governance, how would you propose we, ultimately, decide our public policy? Coin toss? Rock, paper, scissors?
Click to expand...

They seemed to love the coin toss thing in Iowa...(respectful sarcasm)

My apologies.
 
Gaugingcatenate said:
I have degrees in both Political Science and History, taught both and economics for 17 years... There are no strawmen put forward, but since you say there are, give me the instance in which the Monarchy, without the aristocracy, the Church, a parliament, made significant improvements in living standards of the majority of their people on anywhere near the scale of democracy combined with escape from traditional economy by the embracement of capitalism... all the while protecting their people from outside encroachment.
Click to expand...

I'm not sure that there has ever been (since ancient times anyway) a European monarchy without the Church and the aristocracy. And in any case, if you're going to attribute everything good that has happened under democracy to it, then I can certainly do the same with monarchy, and among the accomplishments done in pre-enlightenment times include the start of the very scientific revolution which you use to praise democracy. But in any case, aside from the material aspects of it, the fact is that society was better off morally under the medieval European system than it is now. Can you really deny that?

You cannot do it, but I challenge you in any event.

Often they, the newly born and young ostensible absolute rulers, were controlled by regents who were special interest agents of the rich and powerful. Many were just simply ill equipped naturally to ever rule, no matter the amount of training. Then you have your Genghis Khan types, in complete control without much interference from religion or others, who regularly just massively slaughtered folks on a scale unimaginable until maybe China in the Taiping rebellion or at the hands of the absolute rulers of the 20th century, Hitler, Mao, Stalin. Besides which, even if medieval monarchies were hampered by outside influences, that's a part of the system that the Monarchial system obviously was not able to overcome.
Click to expand...

Hitler came to power democratically. And Mao and Stalin ruled explicitly democratic systems.
 
ludin said:
that means it shouldn't infringe on that right or are you another person that doesn't know what
the 2nd amendment means either?
Click to expand...

I am as pro-gun and pro-rights as any poster on this forum. I just don't think appealing to the Constitution is a good tactic when dealing with people who obviously don't care about the Constitution.
 
Paleocon;1065540824But in any case said:
Yes, I can. I think it's practically self-evident that democracy and democratic societies are morally superior to authoritarianism and rule by arbitrarily-chosen leaders.



Hitler came to power democratically. And Mao and Stalin ruled explicitly democratic systems.
Click to expand...
 
Korimyr the Rat said:
Yes, I can. I think it's practically self-evident that democracy and democratic societies are morally superior to authoritarianism and rule by arbitrarily-chosen leaders.



Hitler came to power democratically. And Mao and Stalin ruled explicitly democratic systems.
Click to expand...
[/QUOTE]

What you (but not the majority of humans who have ever lived) think to be self-evident does not matter.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom