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?

Harkins1721 said:
And 11 teens die a day while texting and driving. Time to ban cars. Oh you need a license? Yeah not everyone follows this rule. Lots of people don't even have insurance of their cars.

How can it be the fault of the car if someone is texting? Are you, for example, in favor of unlimited speeds everywhere in society, like small neighbourhoods with lots of kids running around? Are you in favor of having to have a drivers license in order to manouver a vehicle, like a car or, say an airplane, bus, train etc? Or are you for not regulating anything?



Around the Network

Drunk driving causes as many homicides as guns in the USA. And if anything it's worse because most drunk driving is late at night/early in the morning, and most gun deaths in the USA are gang vs. gang.

The reason the West is free is because the USA has guns.



sc94597 said:
Puppyroach said:

You might not be comfortable with limitations, but being part of society is not about ou feeling comfortable but to form a society that best benefits the people as a whole and i described in the unalienable rights that the declaration of independence describes: "We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness."

This phrase supercedes your right to bear arms any day. What society is about is finding this balance, even when individuals feel uncomfortable with the changes or who is in charge to enact them.

And what is your solution to having some kind of regulations in society if you don´t trust the government to do it?

You need to be less vague than that. 

A few questions to ponder:

1. What constitutes a given society?

2. Where does the state gain it's authority to manage society?

3. Who controls the current political process? Is it "society as a whole?"

4. Why are billionaires and corporations so keen on gun control?

5. Should they have this disproportionate social power?

6. Is the United States of America democratic?

7. Which forms of democracy best represent the social interests and values of most people?

The rest of your post was liberal-democratic dogma which sounds nice on paper, but which is often used by the powerful to deprive the powerless of autonomy.

I don't even believe in "natural" rights. All rights are determined intersubjectively and in the United States we've intersubjectively determined that common gun ownership enhances our abilities to attain life and happiness. 

The state is the protector of privilege not the regulator. So what is my solution? Eliminate that which enforces social alienation through centralized violence -- the state and the capitalist class which controls it. That combined with lifting the poor out of poverty eliminates the bulk of violence in this country which is caused by those so desperate that they join the illegalized drug trade.

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.

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".

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.

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.

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.

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.



McDonaldsGuy said:
Drunk driving causes as many homicides as guns in the USA. And if anything it's worse because most drunk driving is late at night/early in the morning, and most gun deaths in the USA are gang vs. gang.

The reason the West is free is because the USA has guns.

Is it legal to be drunk and drive?



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. 



sc94597 said:

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:

 

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."



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".