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?

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



Around the Network
o_O.Q said:

"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"


"against an armed oppressor they are the only way"

Only if the armed oppressor is bigger, or less ethical.  

 

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

I didn't realize you were unable to understand the facts beyond the examples that I gave you.  

There is data going back several centuries.  The world is absolutely safer today than ever before.  
Even the world wars were less deadly than most of human history.

"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"

This is why there is a necessity to have an educated populace.  This is the danger of having propaganda, fake news, etc.




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. 



sc94597 said:

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 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.



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.



Around the Network
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.



o_O.Q said:
Leadified said:

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

Lol so first you believe that the guy who allied with the German capitalists is a socialist and now you believe that the Soviet Union is an example of tyranny of the majority.

Can you let us know where you get your Kool-Aid? It sounds like some good stuff.

Edit: Oh also nice doublethink, there you agree with me that democracy in the Soviet Union was eroded by authoritarianism and now here you try to say it was democratic.

Last edited by Leadified - on 25 February 2018

Leadified said:

Lol so first you believe that the guy who allied with the German capitalists is a socialist and now you believe that the Soviet Union is an example of tyranny of the majority.

Can you let us know where you get your Kool-Aid? It sounds like some good stuff.

VGC moderators are almost always much better after they've stepped down from their position.



Legend11 correctly predicted that GTA IV (360+PS3) would outsell SSBB. I was wrong.

A Biased Review Reloaded / Open Your Eyes / Switch Gamers Club

RolStoppable said:
Leadified said:

Lol so first you believe that the guy who allied with the German capitalists is a socialist and now you believe that the Soviet Union is an example of tyranny of the majority.

Can you let us know where you get your Kool-Aid? It sounds like some good stuff.

VGC moderators are almost always much better after they've stepped down from their position.

It's nice that I don't have to hold back anymore