By using this site, you agree to our Privacy Policy and our Terms of Use. Close

Forums - Politics Discussion - Delta and United join list of companies to cut ties with the NRA - maybe this truly is the end of gun rights in the US?

SuaveSocialist said:

1.  Various options, possibly an equivalent to the institutions that issue Driver's Licenses and oversee auto insurance.  

2.  If you read one thing as a completely different thing, then your literacy is suspect.  

3. I'm not seeing evidence of rational thinking, though.  

4. That which is freely asserted is freely dismissed.  Pretty much the rest of the free world has figured out how to be free without a Second Amendment.

5.  Good for you.  You're wrong.

1. So obstacles that disproportionately affect the poor and racial minorities, right "socialist", you say. As it is now though, things are already equivalent where it makes sense. I don't need to have a license to buy a car. I can drive it on non-public property without a license. Likewise, I can buy a gun without a license. I can use it on non-public property without a license. If I must carry (or drive) in public I need to get a license/permit in most states. 

Insurance for gun ownership makes very little sense when one looks at the statistics on the relative risk of carrying a gun compared to driving a car in public. 

2. Actually to the contrary, I am using the context of the discussion to wrangle out the implications of your statement. You are the one likely not well-read (literate) on American gun laws, its social forces, how gun control has been used to deprive black people of their autonomy, the class dynamics of the society, and the tensions involved in its politics. It would make the American capitalists quite ecstatic to be able to control the common person's access to arms. 

3. I think the reasons are clear. I am an American proletariat, I don't want the capitalists who control the United States' various governments dictating what arms I can own. That's plenty rational -- I justified my position with reasons.

4. Then convince the common man that they should reduce their ownership of arms, rather than saying "Good" when multi-billionaire corporations use their social and economic power with the aim to deprive the common person of their ability to induce violence. Your "the rest of the free-world" rhetoric is an example of the bandwagon fallacy, and is as sloppy as an argument gets. 

5. And how, might I ask, would one revolutionize political institutions and society without the ability to induce costly violence as an ever-present threat? No revolution ever existed without violence from the common man looming over the society. 

The Civil Rights revolution wouldn't have succeeded as far as it did if these men and women didn't exist, for example:

 



Around the Network
Puppyroach said:

1. Those are all interesting questions but not really that relevant to your statement. You don´t have a natural "right" to bear any weapon you want. If you would form you own country you could set up any rule you want, but if you choose to live in the society you are a part of you either abide by the rules or work towards changing them.

2. Your first three questions are quite easily answered by the constitution of any given country. That is the decision of a majority of the people for the ground rules of what they call "society".

3. There are a lot of billionares and millionares (for example the current president of the US, most of the GOP and even some democrats) that are in favor of not having any more regulations on gun ownership. Some companies have gone out to put their own sanctions on NRA because of public preassure, not because they are "kind hearted". It´s a very important part of capitalism, that the consumers can affect companies this way.

4. Regarding number five, I am strongly opposed to having any private interests other than the citizens themselves supporting democracy financially. And this problem is not unique to the US, just more emphasized than in many other countries.

5. Number six is a tricky one since it depends on what you mean. The way the system is handled with Gerry mandering, the system of electoral votes and money in politics, I would say it has major flaws, but it is the system the US citizens have and a system that has brought major changes through the years like social security, medicare, medicaid, the emancipation of slaves, the end of institutionalized segregation and so on. It is far from perfect but it has a lot of power and the people can change it if they work for it hard enough.

6, And I agree with you that there are no "natural rights" but the "unalienable rights" mentioned are part of a social contract between the people and their government. And how can you claim that the state is the protector of privilege and not the regulator of it if you don´t believe in natural rights? That doesn´t add up at all. And the system you describe will ultimately always lead to oppression of minorities, free speeach and violence since there is no force governed by the people that protects the people against large private interests. You would only replace a flawed system with a catastrophic one.

1. Did you not read my post? I don't believe in natural rights. And they are highly relevant questions, because they help us understand why people want to own a gun when they are deprived of political power. Nobody "chooses" to live in a society, by the way. 

2. Who wrote the constitution? Was it the "whole people?" Why should we discard portions of said document and not the whole thing, if it has such authority? 

3. The current president was for gun control until the moment he ran on the Republican party's ticket. He's probably the worst example to choose. Most politicians aren't billionaires, but middling rich. And corporations don't receive public pressure, they receive pressure from their consumers and shareholders, whom consist of a minority of the public. That is a part of capitalism, but I am not a capitalist, so... 

4. I am not just talking about political power. I am talking about social and economic power too. They aren't using political power here. 

5. Slaves were emancipated by violence through a civil war. Social security, medicare, and medicaid were instituted through the threat of socialist revolution/crisis, and the end of institutionalized segregation involved these guys. Always was there a threat of political revolution which forced the elites to reform. 

6. The Declaration of Independence preceded the United States by fifteen years. It wasn't a social contract. I say the state is the protector of privilege, because it is the vehicle through which the bourgeoisie institutionalize their violence in order to maintain their position in society. Its very purpose is to protect the capitalist class and its property. Everything else it does -- it does to prevent revolution. "Large private interests" can't exist without the state. Private property is too costly without a monopoly on the legitimacy of violence subsidizing the costs of ownership. 



the-pi-guy said: 

5.

https://www.quora.com/Was-the-right-to-bear-arms-a-crucial-factor-for-the-success-of-the-civil-rights-movement

"Not in the least. It was harmful to the civil rights movement. Private ownership of firearms was part of the means by which blacks were kept in subjection even after slavery ended. The Ku Klux Klan made extensive use of them.

The civil rights movement was almost entirely non-violent so far as the protesters were concerned. Martin Luther King adopted Gandhi’s approach of non-violent resistance, civil disobedience, and shrewd use of the media. Firearms played no part in this.

Arms were used by civilians in two ways. First, some black people not affiliated with Martin Luther King felt that they should take up arms in the struggle. They mostly died violent deaths, either through conflicts with the police or among themselves. Malcolm X was killed by someone in his own organization. It was just as dumb an idea as the “militia” loons’ ideas today. Second, a number of white civilians abused their right to bear arms to murder civil rights workers."

Ernest Adams is not looking at things comprehensively here. 

Without the threat of black nationalists, nobody would've looked at Martin Luther King Jr. as a moderate. In fact, King used the Black Panthers as an example of what is to come if there wasn't reform. This was a powerful motivator. 


It is most clear in his Letter from a Birmingham Jail where he criticizes the "white Moderate." 

"You speak of our activity in Birmingham as extreme. At first I was rather disappointed that fellow clergymen would see my nonviolent efforts as those of an extremist. I began thinking about the fact that I stand in the middle of two opposing forces in the Negro community. One is a force of complacency, made up in part of Negroes who, as a result of long years of oppression, are so drained of self respect and a sense of "somebodiness" that they have adjusted to segregation; and in part of a few middle-class Negroes who, because of a degree of academic and economic security and because in some ways they profit by segregation, have become insensitive to the problems of the masses. The other force is one of bitterness and hatred, and it comes perilously close to advocating violence. It is expressed in the various black nationalist groups that are springing up across the nation, the largest and best known being Elijah Muhammad's Muslim movement. Nourished by the Negro's frustration over the continued existence of racial discrimination, this movement is made up of people who have lost faith in America, who have absolutely repudiated Christianity, and who have concluded that the white man is an incorrigible "devil.""

"
I have tried to stand between these two forces, saying that we need emulate neither the "do nothingism" of the complacent nor the hatred and despair of the black nationalist. For there is the more excellent way of love and nonviolent protest. I am grateful to God that, through the influence of the Negro church, the way of nonviolence became an integral part of our struggle. If this philosophy had not emerged, by now many streets of the South would, I am convinced, be flowing with blood. And I am further convinced that if our white brothers dismiss as "rabble rousers" and "outside agitators" those of us who employ nonviolent direct action, and if they refuse to support our nonviolent efforts, millions of Negroes will, out of frustration and despair, seek solace and security in black nationalist ideologies--a development that would inevitably lead to a frightening racial nightmare."

The Black Panthers also played a significant role to protect people, by cop-watching

Which is why the Mulford Act was signed, so that police could continue to beat black people without fear. 



the-pi-guy said:
o_O.Q said:

"You're thanking freedom for having guns, when there are other countries that gained their freedom without guns."

you're trying to compare apples to oranges as i said previously

a country being actively oppressed and fighting for its freedom is different to the oppressor deciding that the control its exerting is not beneficial anymore

 

"This is the most peaceful time in history. "

no, the middle east, africa on a wider scale and even europe and asia are not peaceful at this point in time


"but because of democracy. "

"Social-Democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to a the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. "

vladimir lenin

the soviet union was democratic... how did that turn out?

there's a reason why america was founded as a constitutional republic and not a democracy... and there's a reason why there's such a profound push towards a democracy

 

"Many countries on Earth today, have enormous freedoms despite ridiculously low gun ownership rates.  "

i'm not saying you are wrong but can you give an example?

 

"The weapons that were available to common folk throughout history were much closer to the military weapons.  This isn't the case anymore.  The US government literally has the power to end nearly all life on Earth.  "

i already gave my response to this sentiment

there are people that are willing to fight for their freedom regardless of the circumstances, you might not be one of them but the point is that they exist

"you're trying to compare apples to oranges as i said previously

a country being actively oppressed and fighting for its freedom is different to the oppressor deciding that the control its exerting is not beneficial anymore"

The point is that guns aren't the only way to achieve freedom.  The UK has a very low rate of gun ownership, yet its citizens are free.  

"no, the middle east, africa on a wider scale and even europe and asia are not peaceful at this point in time"

No.  The entire world of conflicts in the middle east or Africa or anywhere else are nothing compared to world war I or II.  The fact of the matter is that this is the most peaceful time in human history.

It's a fact, there's absolutely nothing to debate with this point.

https://www.pri.org/stories/2014-10-23/world-actually-safer-ever-and-heres-data-prove

 

"i'm not saying you are wrong but can you give an example?"

Japan has a gun ownership rate of 0.6 (out of 100 citizens).

The UK has a gun ownership rate of 6.2

Poland - 1.3

Ireland - 4.3

Italy -11.9

Denmark -12

 

"the soviet union was democratic... how did that turn out?

there's a reason why america was founded as a constitutional republic and not a democracy... and there's a reason why there's such a profound push towards a democracy"

"The United States is a democracy because the authority of the government arises from the people.


Jefferson said it best in the Declaration of Independence:

...to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, --That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it... 

"

From Jefferson, governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.  This is why it's so easy to delude oneself into thinking that guns are what give people freedom. The reality is that optimistically, guns give a bit more power to consent or not consent.  But they are not the only way to get such power.  There are plenty of famous people that proved that.  Gandhi, Rosa Parks, Martin Luther King and many others through history.  

"The point is that guns aren't the only way to achieve freedom."

against an armed oppressor they are the only way

 

"No.  The entire world of conflicts in the middle east or Africa or anywhere else are nothing compared to world war I or II."

i didn't realise that the world wars represented the entirety of human history outside of the present day

 

"From Jefferson, governments derive their powers from the consent of the governed.  "

what do you understand from this quote?:

""Democracy is not freedom. Democracy is two wolves and a lamb voting on what to eat for lunch. Freedom comes from the recognition of certain rights which may not be taken, not even by a 99 percent vote.""

the problem with democracy is that if the majority decides that it is just to strip away the rights of all then all are forced to comply

the reason why america was called a "constitutional republic" with "creator endowed rights" is because they understood that they people could be led quite easily to destroy themselves by revoking their rights for greater security

so they put down certain base rights and formed government around that

democracy does not inherently recognise creator endowed rights, the will of the majority of the people becomes law and as a result 

"democracy is indispensable to socialism"




sc94597 said:
Puppyroach said:

1. Those are all interesting questions but not really that relevant to your statement. You don´t have a natural "right" to bear any weapon you want. If you would form you own country you could set up any rule you want, but if you choose to live in the society you are a part of you either abide by the rules or work towards changing them.

2. Your first three questions are quite easily answered by the constitution of any given country. That is the decision of a majority of the people for the ground rules of what they call "society".

3. There are a lot of billionares and millionares (for example the current president of the US, most of the GOP and even some democrats) that are in favor of not having any more regulations on gun ownership. Some companies have gone out to put their own sanctions on NRA because of public preassure, not because they are "kind hearted". It´s a very important part of capitalism, that the consumers can affect companies this way.

4. Regarding number five, I am strongly opposed to having any private interests other than the citizens themselves supporting democracy financially. And this problem is not unique to the US, just more emphasized than in many other countries.

5. Number six is a tricky one since it depends on what you mean. The way the system is handled with Gerry mandering, the system of electoral votes and money in politics, I would say it has major flaws, but it is the system the US citizens have and a system that has brought major changes through the years like social security, medicare, medicaid, the emancipation of slaves, the end of institutionalized segregation and so on. It is far from perfect but it has a lot of power and the people can change it if they work for it hard enough.

6, And I agree with you that there are no "natural rights" but the "unalienable rights" mentioned are part of a social contract between the people and their government. And how can you claim that the state is the protector of privilege and not the regulator of it if you don´t believe in natural rights? That doesn´t add up at all. And the system you describe will ultimately always lead to oppression of minorities, free speeach and violence since there is no force governed by the people that protects the people against large private interests. You would only replace a flawed system with a catastrophic one.

1. Did you not read my post? I don't believe in natural rights. And they are highly relevant questions, because they help us understand why people want to own a gun when they are deprived of political power. Nobody "chooses" to live in a society, by the way. 

2. Who wrote the constitution? Was it the "whole people?" Why should we discard portions of said document and not the whole thing, if it has such authority? 

3. The current president was for gun control until the moment he ran on the Republican party's ticket. He's probably the worst example to choose. Most politicians aren't billionaires, but middling rich. And corporations don't receive public pressure, they receive pressure from their consumers and shareholders, whom consist of a minority of the public. That is a part of capitalism, but I am not a capitalist, so... 

4. I am not just talking about political power. I am talking about social and economic power too. They aren't using political power here. 

5. Slaves were emancipated by violence through a civil war. Social security, medicare, and medicaid were instituted through the threat of socialist revolution/crisis, and the end of institutionalized segregation involved these guys. Always was there a threat of political revolution which forced the elites to reform. 

6. The Declaration of Independence preceded the United States by fifteen years. It wasn't a social contract. I say the state is the protector of privilege, because it is the vehicle through which the bourgeoisie institutionalize their violence in order to maintain their position in society. Its very purpose is to protect the capitalist class and its property. Everything else it does -- it does to prevent revolution. "Large private interests" can't exist without the state. Private property is too costly without a monopoly on the legitimacy of violence subsidizing the costs of ownership. 

1. Yes you do if you believe the that privileges exist as they are just as much of a "right" as any natural "right" anyone would claim. And I didn´t say you could choose whether or not to live in society, but rather which society you want to live in.

2. Because you don´t have a choice. Through the democratic process, the people have decided that you as part of that society is obligated to follow the laws that are a product of the constitution. If you wish to change that, becaome part of the democratic process.

3. Public preassure is rarely the same as the majority of people putting preassure on companies. And how is Trump a bad example just because he switches position every day? It just makes him like many other politicians, pro gun or not.

4. But social and economic power is almost always derived from political power.

5. Exactly, which in turn changed the political process. And in most of the cases you mentioned, the revolution was mostly non-violent and happened through elected officials, as it should be.

6. Yes, but it can still be amended. And you must believe that natural privileges exist if your view is that the government should only uphold them, never regulate them, otherwise your arguments makes no sense at all. You can argue that natural privileges does not exist but that the privleges we have decided upon in society should not be regulated; but that is just an opinion, not a static fact. If you believe privileges are a man-made entity, then those privileges in themselves are regulations on humans. And you forget that humanity is an animal that is egotistical, predatory and violent (like most mammals) and we will always find ways to oppress and manipulate people around us o protect our "flock". 



Around the Network
Leadified said:
o_O.Q said:

"but because of democracy. "

"Social-Democracy, however, wants, on the contrary, to develop the class struggle of the proletariat to the point where the latter will take the leading part in the popular Russian revolution, i.e., will lead this revolution to a the democratic-dictatorship of the proletariat and the peasantry. "

vladimir lenin

the soviet union was democratic... how did that turn out?

there's a reason why america was founded as a constitutional republic and not a democracy... and there's a reason why there's such a profound push towards a democracy

This might be the single worst argument against democracy I've ever seen. Try "tyranny of the majority" instead if you want to argue against democracy and make the point on why America is a republic.

my point was in fact about the tyranny of the majority... that's what formed the soviet union... you weren't aware?

the thing you so called "socialists" don't get about "socialism" and communism is that at its core its about  stripping away rights to reduce people down to the lowest common denominator... for "equality"

which any sensible person realises right away is not desirable in the least if you actually want to help people, especially the poor

 

i'm still waiting to hear about how hitler privitised everything and yet still controlled the economy btw



Puppyroach said:

1. Yes you do if you believe the that privileges exist as they are just as much of a "right" as any natural "right" anyone would claim. And I didn´t say you could choose whether or not to live in society, but rather which society you want to live in.

2. Because you don´t have a choice. Through the democratic process, the people have decided that you as part of that society is obligated to follow the laws that are a product of the constitution. If you wish to change that, becaome part of the democratic process.

3. Public preassure is rarely the same as the majority of people putting preassure on companies. And how is Trump a bad example just because he switches position every day? It just makes him like many other politicians, pro gun or not.

4. But social and economic power is almost always derived from political power.

5. Exactly, which in turn changed the political process. And in most of the cases you mentioned, the revolution was mostly non-violent and happened through elected officials, as it should be.

6. Yes, but it can still be amended. And you must believe that natural privileges exist if your view is that the government should only uphold them, never regulate them, otherwise your arguments makes no sense at all. You can argue that natural privileges does not exist but that the privleges we have decided upon in society should not be regulated; but that is just an opinion, not a static fact. If you believe privileges are a man-made entity, then those privileges in themselves are regulations on humans. And you forget that humanity is an animal that is egotistical, predatory and violent (like most mammals) and we will always find ways to oppress and manipulate people around us o protect our "flock". 

1. Privileges are granted by a state or society. People are born in societies. They don't choose them. 

2. Okay then. So if the U.S Constitution is the social contract, and it has a process by which it can be changed, why not change it through said process? The Second Amendment is part of said constitution. If we can just ignore that (without going through the defined process) can't we just disregard the whole document? So you either accept the second amendment with the rest of said constitution, or you reject the authority of the constitution. I choose the latter, but still think it is important that the common person owns guns. But if I am working within the confines already defined by a couple dozen men whom died two centuries ago, why would I pick and choose from which things they signed? 

3. When Trump was merely a billionaire his interests were to limit gun rights. When he became a politician his interests changed because he needed to take that position in order to get the right votes. It shows that the interests of Trump the politician are different from Trump the billionaire. 

4. I agree. But this is a scenario where the corporations are directly using their social and economic power which was privileged to them by the state. Even if we eliminated the direct donations, the state is still working at the behest of the political elite, unless we radically reformed the democratic system to become much more direct than it is. 

5. Sure, but if the general population is not a threat, what are the incentives to reform the system? I want the common man and woman to seize political nd socio-economic power, why would I deprive them of options to achieve that? 

6. I never made the claim that I believed "government should uphold" "natural rights." Differences in ability and interests exist, but they are largely inconsequential compared to social privileges. It doesn't matter how intelligent you are, if you are poor and can't go to school then you aren't going to be able to use that intelligence. It doesn't matter how much physical potential you have, if you are starving to death. So on and so forth. 

Human beings are social creatures as much as they are egoists. Individual men and women can form social bonds without being "oppress(ed) or manipulate(d) as flock animals." This was true for most of our history until social inequalities developed during the Agricultural Revolution. Since about Roman times, we've become more socially equal though as we disestablished the means by which social elites held their power: religion, inequality in access to weapons, feudal property, inequality in access to technology, inequality in access to land, etc. These "rights" are merely social conventions which we've been told to accept. Very much like the supposed "natural rights" enshrined in the DoI. 

Sure there might always be some local degree of exploitation, but on large-scales there is no reason to believe it is a fixed state of human social relationships. 



the-pi-guy said:

 Civil Rights movement had several successes before the black panthers were even a thing.  

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Civil_Rights_Act_of_1964

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Voting_Rights_Act_of_1965

 

These are two of the most important successes of the civil rights movement and both of them happened before the black panthers even existed.

Black Nationalism, in general, predates the Black Panther Party by almost 20 years. Letter from Birmingham Jail was written in 1963.

I only mentioned the Black Panthers specifically because they were involved in cop-watching and preventing police brutality by being armed.



sc94597 said:
SuaveSocialist said:

1.  Various options, possibly an equivalent to the institutions that issue Driver's Licenses and oversee auto insurance.  

2.  If you read one thing as a completely different thing, then your literacy is suspect.  

3. I'm not seeing evidence of rational thinking, though.  

4. That which is freely asserted is freely dismissed.  Pretty much the rest of the free world has figured out how to be free without a Second Amendment.

5.  Good for you.  You're wrong.

1. I don't need to have a license to buy a car. I can drive it on non-public property without a license. 

2. Actually to the contrary, I am using the context of the discussion to wrangle out the implications of your statement. 

3. I think the reasons are clear. I am an American proletariat, I don't want the capitalists who control the United States' various governments dictating what arms I can own. 

4.  Your "the rest of the free-world" rhetoric is an example of the bandwagon fallacy, and is as sloppy as an argument gets.

5. And how, might I ask, would one revolutionize political institutions and society

1. You only asked "privilege at whose authority", not the methodologies said authority could use.  I never said that an equivalent to the authority would be limited to using identical methodologies as those who issue driver's licenses and auto insurance.  Are you reading things differently than as they are written again?

2. Well, you've gone from what was written to another thing entirely without any logical explanation of how you got there, so your literacy remains suspect.  

3. Good for you.  You still aren't presenting evidence of rational thinking, though.  

4. No, it's not.  The "bandwagon fallacy" is committed when one asserts that the opinion of the majority is valid.  My statement did not reference an opinion at all, let alone appeal to an opinion's popularity as merit for its truth.  My statement was a verifiable fact.  Pretty much the rest of the free world lacks a Second Amendment or an equivalent thereof, yet they are still free.  That fact refutes your earlier claim and it is not a fallacy to point that out to you. 

5.  I never said anything about revolution.  Are you reading things differently than as they've been written again?  Because that has absolutely nothing to do with what I said in point 5.

I'm giving you one last chance to type something coherent.  



sc94597 said:
Puppyroach said:

2. Because you don´t have a choice. Through the democratic process, the people have decided that you as part of that society is obligated to follow the laws that are a product of the constitution. If you wish to change that, becaome part of the democratic process.

2. Okay then. So if the U.S Constitution is the social contract, and it has a process by which it can be changed, why not change it through said process? The Second Amendment is part of said constitution. If we can just ignore that (without going through the defined process) can't we just disregard the whole document? So you either accept the second amendment with the rest of said constitution, or you reject the authority of the constitution. I choose the latter, but still think it is important that the common person owns guns. But if I am working within the confines already defined by a couple dozen men whom died two centuries ago, why would I pick and choose from which things they signed? 

I will focus in the most relevant part here and I mostly agree with you in terms of how the constitution should be handled, but not your conclusion of it.

If we look at the ratified version: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It could be amended to more clearly specify what it refers to (because it is very vague as it is written) nut it opens up for lawmakers to put many regulations on gun ownership. Does it mean that the government shall not infringe on the right to bear arms of a well regulated miltia is to be upheld, does it refer to every citizens right to bear arms? What exactly does it refer to?

If we assume that it does refer to every citizen (although that might actually contradict the text), is that right infringed if assault rifles are not part of the picture? If you have the right to own a hunting rifle, you do have the right to bear arms. It does not state "to keep and bear ANY arms" and seem to open up for quite a lot of regulation.

Also, can the right be infringed upon if it come in conflict with life, liberty and the pursuit of happines? No law text is a binary system where we can judge everything in black and white. They must always be weighed with other rights given by society and can sometimes come in conflict with them.

This is why you have elected officials and a supreme court, to make judgements on these matters. But I would claim that the text as it stands at the moment does not, in any way, stand in the way of banning every automatic rifle for example. Aslong as there are weapons available for the citizens to own, that right does not stand in contradiction with heavlity regulating the amount of different weapons available.