"why kids are not taught about evil" Topic

People vary, of course. But as a general rule you do not spend money as carefully on others as on yourself. "It's what I can afford and I hope she likes it." And if it is someone else's money there is actually an incentive to spend MORE, because it lowers your opportunity costs. When I spend my own $$ on myself, I have to balance costs and benefits. When I spend someone else's $$ on a third party -- which is what ALL government spending does -- there is no reason to consider either cost nor benefits as closely. In fact, higher costs benefit the one spending.

When I spend someone else's $$ on a third party -- which is what ALL government spending does -- there is no reason to consider either cost nor benefits as closely. In fact, higher costs benefit the one spending.

I think you are describing a dynamic that doesn't exist as a generalization when you say "there is no reason to consider cost nor benefits." The other assumption here is that no one is held accountable, internally or by a 'third party.' In saying that, I am including governmental bureaucracies up to and including politicians as well and private business bureaucracies such as your favorite HMO or gas and electric provider.

Are there agencies and individuals that fit your description? Absolutely, but that could also describe the clerk at Walmart, your veterinarian, your neighbor pooling everyone's money on your street to pave it or the honorable representative from the great state of Texas.

It just ain't so. How often have you worked with governmental or private bureaucracies, particularly in person?

In 50+ years of teaching? Lots. Private and public schools, state university, state prison.

Bureaucrats are accountable to higher bureaucrats. That does not change the underlying dynamic.

You should check again. A lot of people, usually on the left want to remove the right to bear arms, get rid of the electoral college, want progressive taxation, etc. In other words, they don't support the Constitution.

It's always about guns, isn't it?

BTW I heard that some people…. and people who were very much not on the left….wanted to overthrow the constitution and were offering to hang the then Vice President if he certified the democratic election result. I believe some of them ended up in court…

Just because you don't like parts of the Constitution doesn't mean you hate the Constitution. That's what amendments are for. Unless you are on the right and want to do away with it altogether or re-write it so someone can remain in office indefinitely.

I would love to see an amendment to do away with the Electoral College. It doesn't serve any useful purpose.

The Electoral College's winner-take-all is why we have only two parties. The two party system is the worst of all political arrangements, except for the others. The EC is one of the main things protecting us from becoming a democracy, and thereby preserving our liberties from the worst tyranny of all, that of the unchecked majority.

But wasn't the electoral college designed to function without parties. Surely now that there are parties it needs an amendment?
Wasn't it Washington himself who said "Why are people burning books?"

Yeah, the electoral college was created several years before there were parties.

Originally, it provided the smaller states with outsized power in choosing the president to avoid what doc mcb noted: The tyranny of the larger, more populous states. The second purpose was to protect the nation from rule by demagogues and cults of personality. There was a real fear of the general population not being smart enough to choose competent leaders, so the 'knowledgeable men' of the electoral college were to act as a check, actually choosing someone else as President they felt was more qualified, less dangerous.

The first reason does have it's problems. Trump definitely won the electoral college in 2016, but lost the popular vote by over 2 million. The EC basically denied those 2 million their votes. In 2020, Biden won by over seven million votes and still ended up with the exact same EC count as Trump. There are some problems there, including the small states, when voting together, creating a tyranny of the minority far outweighing their actual voter representation in the US. I think there is some room for improvement with the EC, and not necessarily its elimination.

The second reason for the EC, was to be able to override the popular vote and choose someone else as President to protect the Federal government. Obviously has never been utilized. It would be completely unacceptable in the US today, if the EC actually attempted to make that kind of independent choice.

The authors of the Constitution knew that 1. the basic structure of the government with its checks and balances was sound but 2. would have to be able to change with the times, and problems would require 'tweaking.' The system has and can handle it.

For example, in the beginning there were just three Supreme Court Justices, since then there have been five, seven, nine and twelve at one time IIRC. And yet we have survived as a nation.

I don't think there has ever been just three? Never read that. But yes, Congress CAN change the number.

And survived SO FAR.

I was wrong. The original number of Supremes was six appointed by Washington, though at one point there were five in early administrations. Three more were added because of the expanding federal circuit court districts created by the expanding US. For a short period there were 10 during the ACW and 11 after than, but never 12.

Yes, we have survived so far. Every generation says that. When we have lost our faith in the system and stop in our efforts to make it work, that is when it will fail. We have an ex-president calling for the suspension of the Constitution. What do you think?

One thing I have learned from history is that every generation sees their problems as unique and more dire that previous history. I remember when I had to sign a declaration of loyalty to the U.S. during the Viet Nam war, required to work in Humboldt County DOE's film library. [Commies in government were everywhere] That was how nervous federal government folks were over the War protests. Students were being shot down on college campuses, radicals were rigging bombs, robbing banks and there were riots in the streets and on college campuses. The U.S. was on the brink of disillusion.

McLaddie, do you mean "disillusion" or "dissolution." Both words work, but depending on your choice, they will take the conversation in different directions.

Nevertheless….

I had a friend who attended a religious university. He always said he attended a drinking college with a Catholic problem.

Sometimes I wonder if TMP is a political forum with a miniatures problem. For the life of me, I cannot see how this thread can possibly relate to the hobby.

Extrabio1947:

Yeah, I liked the play on words… This list is titled "General History Discussion", so I would think the discussion topics apply.

But, I agree, I don't see how this particular thread could possibly relate to the hobby. I don't think this one list constitutes a 'problem' for the TMP, drinking, political or otherwise. Now, if we were discussing the British maneuvers around Salamanca and this discussion resulted, then I say there was a problem.

The original number of Supremes was six

Ahem – four I think:

Diana Ross
Mary Wilson
Florence Ballard
Barbara Martin

Although Barbara Martin left quite soon after the group name was adopted and they became a trio.

Bet not a kid knows about Democide

Governments killing their own citizens

You mean like Kent State?

Without the EC there is no reason for candidates to campaign, nor politicians to weigh the interests of, small states and minorities. It is true that any vote above the one that wins a state is wasted. But this applies both ways. Trump had many "wasted votes" in Texas, just as Biden did in CA. But what that means s that candidates do not spend more time than necessary in states they already will win, but instead campaign in states they MI GHT win. This is a GOOD thing.

Londonplod,
To your point, one of the things that I find odd is how hard it is to predict a child's outcome. You can get a kid from a family worth millions that is a total and goes bad, while another kid from a family living in a trailer park barely making it will work his fingers to the bone and be top of his class.

A stable family and moral grounding, (i.e. regular church goers), point towards the latter, but there are exceptions.

"Surely one does not have to have any religious belief in order to believe that genocide, murder, rape, theft &c. are wrong?"

I would disagree with this statement. What makes these thing wrong IS religious belief. And I would specify that only certain religions consider these things wrong. After all the Aztecs murdered many in the name of their religion as did other religions such as the Thugee. Imagine the world today if the Carthaginians won and dominated the Mediterranean. What would Christianity look like today if it came about in a world dominated by a religion that, (apparently, there is debate on this point), found child sacrifice acceptable?

Mcladdie

"Almost always hear?" Who are you talking to? Sorry, but when Communism has almost always become authoritarian dictatorships with genocidal tendencies, I doubt seriously, that anyone 'almost always hears' that. I sure haven't among my 'leftist friends.'

I have to disagree. I've heard it over and over. A country falls to the communists and the left rallies behind it stating that it is a communist success, then it degenerates into a dictatorship, as they always do, and then it's declared that it isn't real communism. Venezuela was touted as 'real communism', until it failed and people started starving. When another successful country falls to the communists and they haven't burnt through their riches we'll hear the same thing.

"I almost always hear the right insisting the left wants to remove the right to bear arms, but I don't hear that on the left. Again, who are you talking to? Those on the Right?"

No, I simply listen to leftist politicians.

"Do you know what the first act of this term's Republican Congress did…FIRST THING. They turned back the gun restrictions for those diagnosed with serious mental conditions."

Why should someone lose their Constitutional rights when they haven't been convicted of a crime? At one time homosexuality was considered a mental illness, should homosexuals not be allowed to own guns? What about transexuals? They, by definition, have gender dysphoria. Should they be banned from owning guns?

"The Right has no problem with licenses and taxes on automobiles, or denying a driver's license to the mentally ill, proven DUIs and reckless driving."

Thanks for making my point. Those people have been convicted of crimes and have lost the PRIVALEGE to drive. Not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

"Even though 60% of gun violence in the US is tied to spousal abuse and confirmed violent behavior,"

Can you provide a source for this claim? The vast majority of 'gun violence' revolves around drugs and gangs. All you have to do is watch the news and see that virtually every shooting reported is during criminal activity, not domestic violence.

"We have to have sensible conversations about this rather than paranoia that the government is coming to get your guns"

Yet that's exactly what's happened. California passed a registration law mandating certain firearms had to be registered with the government. Several years later they outlawed those guns and sent letters to everyone that had registered their guns saying that they had to turn their gun in, move it out of state, (and provide proof that they had done so), or be arrested and convicted of a felony. Canada did the same this as did Australia and the UK.

"Supposedly, more guns means more safety. In the last 40 years, the number of guns per capita has sky-rocked. So has gun violence."

Yes, Dr. John Lott roved that years ago in a book titled, "More Guns, Less Crime". The places with sky rocketing violence are cities and states with highly restricted gun ownership.

"Having Constitutional amendments on the electoral college or progressive taxation isn't 'anti-Constitutional. You may not agree with those ideas, but the Constitution has how many amendments?"

What difference does it make how many amendments there are? No one that I'm aware of has introduced an amendment to change the electoral college. Instead they attempt to subvert the Constitution with the National Popular Vote Interstate Compact. This plan, and several states have signed on to it, is to give their electoral votes to whatever candidate gets the most votes nationally. How is this anything but a subversion of the Constitution? link

McLaddie

"Having worked at a boys ranch as a teacher, I can imagine some of what you've seen as a police officer. However, "Immoral men" [or teenagers] aren't a new phenomenon, nor is unspeakable evil."

All too true.

"Neither are worse now than the past."

On this I will disagree a bit. I contend that certain actions that were acceptable in the past should not be acceptable now. But they are because moral/religious strictures have been removed. Mongols would happily kill every man, woman, and child in a city that resisted them. Eight hundred years later the Nazis tried to wipe out every Jew, Gypsy, and homosexual in Europe. Both were horrendous crimes, but what makes the Nazis worse is that societies mores changed as a result of Christianity and Enlightenment thought.

Just my opinion.

"A nominally "conservative" group is planning to replace the entire Civil Service with political appointees."

The Federal bureaucracy has been a source of friction since before the Constitution was written. At one time every Federal job was appointed by the president. There's now a permanent bureaucracy and only the leadership changes.

There's arguments to be made both ways.

"I would love to see an amendment to do away with the Electoral College. It doesn't serve any useful purpose."

Without the electoral college every election would be decided by a couple of large states on the coasts. The EC gives smaller states a voice that can't be ignored. Without it rural America would have no voice.

"But wasn't the electoral college designed to function without parties. Surely now that there are parties it needs an amendment?"

There can be an argument made there. But what would you replace it with?

"Yeah, the electoral college was created several years before there were parties"

I'd argue that the parties predate the EC. After all, the Federalists and Anti-Federalists formed in reaction to the Constitution being proposed.

"Students were being shot down on college campuses,"

Campus, singular. Unless it happened somewhere else in addition to Kent State.

Without the electoral college every election would be decided by a couple of large states on the coasts.

And? Although what you say isnt necessarily true, how would it be worse than the current system where the elections are decided by a handful of the same medium sized states?

And why are the states at odds with each other anyway?

The EC gives smaller states a voice that can't be ignored. Without it rural America would have no voice.

Under the current system, some states in rural America have twenty times the voice that the larger states have which is extraordinarily unfair but I dont see those states worrying about that. Eliminating the EC would reduce that sort of outsized power.

Presumably, according to your logic, those rural states can still live life the way they want within their borders and will benefit by billions of people fleeing coastal states because of the unfairness of the loss of the EC which will in turn make the rural states a lot more influential.

"Students were being shot down on college campuses,"

Campus, singular. Unless it happened somewhere else in addition to Kent State.

It did, it also happened at Jackson State University:

link

doc: In how many films etc do we see Nazis as the villains, versus Communists? I bet the ratio is like 10 to 1 Nazis vs Commies.

Oh I know, it's so unfair, the Nazis just cant get a break…

doc: I have used Praeger's material for decades. His lecture on holiness is excellent. What specifically do you object to in the OP?

Well, let's see, pick a Praeger U video, any video. Dennis Praeger is one of the most dishonest political performance artists in the USA who wants to impose his ridiculously backward, ultra religious views on the country and doesn't care how many lies he tells to get his way. He lies about the facts, he lies about the past, he lies about the present. He is basically just a basket of lies. He is also an anti-intellectual demagogue masquerading as a "doctor" and it is no shock that one of his allies is Dinesh DSouza.

doc:The EC is one of the main things protecting us from becoming a democracy, and thereby preserving our liberties from the worst tyranny of all, that of the unchecked majority.

Specifically, what liberty destroying tyrannies are we under threat from by the "unchecked majority"? I mean, just list the top ten or so.

Dn Jackson:
There were several things you've commented on, so I will try to respond to as much as I can.

Dealing with gun violence and the prevalence of guns. I don't know who Dr. John Lott is or how long ago he wrote "More Guns, Less Crime" but a simple search for data doesn't support that claim. Here is a map of gun violence per state:

link

IF you doubt that more guns leads to more violence, match that map to gun ownership by state.

link

Nearly half of gun deaths are self-inflicted. Again, by state.

link

The states with weaker gun laws and higher gun ownership lead the nation in gun-related deaths. Period: See first link.

link

It is really a no-brainer: More guns, more gun violence/deaths.

Do you know what the first act of this term's Republican Congress did…FIRST THING. They turned back the gun restrictions for those diagnosed with serious mental conditions."

The law rescinded addressed legally determined and/or arrested for serious mental conditions, INCLUDING violent behavior, Domestic abuse and and threatening behavior. This didn't address those with depression or bi-polar diagnosis etc.

"The Right has no problem with licenses and taxes on automobiles, or denying a driver's license to the mentally ill, proven DUIs and reckless driving."

Thanks for making my point. Those people have been convicted of crimes and have lost the PRIVALEGE to drive. Not a right guaranteed by the Constitution.

Dn Jackson:

The fourth amendment states in part: The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated,…

It has been established by laws and court cases that denying a person the use of their property denies them that 'security' and is tantamount to seizure in many cases. The justification for revoking a driver's license is public safety. The same is true for denying drivers 'the right' to drive certain types of cars on public roadways--or even OWNING certain types of vehicles without special permission of at all.

The same 'rights' are true for our homes, with taxes and required deeds, and can be evicted for a number of reasons.

But guns are different--right.

I have to disagree. I've heard it over and over. A country falls to the communists and the left rallies behind it stating that it is a communist success, then it degenerates into a dictatorship, as they always do, and then it's declared that it isn't real communism. Venezuela was touted as 'real communism', until it failed and people started starving. When another successful country falls to the communists and they haven't burnt through their riches we'll hear the same thing.

Dn: Who are you listening to??

"I almost always hear the right insisting the left wants to remove the right to bear arms, but I don't hear that on the left. Again, who are you talking to? Those on the Right?"

No, I simply listen to leftist politicians.

Who is advocating getting rid of the second amendment? And how many make up those 'leftist politicians?' I'd love some quotes on this.

"[evil actions] Neither are worse now than the past."

On this I will disagree a bit. I contend that certain actions that were acceptable in the past should not be acceptable now. But they are because moral/religious strictures have been removed.

After the battle of Cannae, the Panic Roman public in a religious fervor to appease the gods, buried virgins alive in Rome's Temple of Zeus. Throughout the 16 and 17 hundreds, catholic and protestant churches hung and burned witches to protect the godly. At least 50,000 in Europe and hundreds in the Colonies were killed because God required it. Both actions were viewed as required by moral/religious strictures.

The holocaust was religiously based, Jews, JWs and Catholics etc. were targets as you noted. Many of the wars of the last and this century have often been religion-driven. Literally millions have been killed since 2000 in the name of some religion.

I don't believe that 'religion' is inherently bad as some do, just various groups of people who use it to justify non-religious desires or fears. Today, in the U.S., there are a number of churches who demonize particular groups, calling for their eradication, claiming that we are a Christian nation and therefore must adhere to their Christian mores.

Moral strictures are put in place and/or removed by people, followed or ignored by people. This is true regardless of any particular religious beliefs, culture or time.

I don't need to be religious to believe that such acts of killing and calls for eradiation are evil. If being religious, Christian or otherwise, was the solution to maintaining moral behavior, the history of the world would look much different.

"And? Although what you say isnt necessarily true, how would it be worse than the current system where the elections are decided by a handful of the same medium sized states?"

Because the smaller rural states would have no say in the election. Their interests would be ignored and their rights would ultimately be trampled. Look how major cities are run now. Single party rule for decades on end and all things valued by rural populations are ignored. Think Chicago on a national scale.

"And why are the states at odds with each other anyway?"

It is the nature of mankind. Different populations, different values, different priorities. It's always been this way and likely always will be. Even in the most totalitarian states, (Nazi Germany, USSR, Cuba, etc.), there is still a population that values things the ruling class doesn't which leads to friction.

"Under the current system, some states in rural America have twenty times the voice that the larger states have which is extraordinarily unfair but I dont see those states worrying about that. Eliminating the EC would reduce that sort of outsized power."

There's nothing unfair about it as long as you understand what the US is. The United States is a collection of 50 sovereign states that gave up some of their rights to a federal government. Each state gets a voice in how the country is run.

I was not familiar with Jackson State. From reading the Wiki article you linked to it seems very different than Kent State. Since all the windows in one building were broken it seems the police did believe they were under fire and were responding to that. It sounds like a bad response.

"Oh I know, it's so unfair, the Nazis just cant get a break…"

It's not a matter of Nazis getting a bad rap, it's a matter of ignoring the equally evil communists because certain groups empathize with them.

"Well, let's see, pick a Praeger U video, any video. Dennis Praeger is one of the most dishonest political performance artists in the USA who wants to impose his ridiculously backward, ultra religious views on the country and doesn't care how many lies he tells to get his way. He lies about the facts, he lies about the past, he lies about the present. He is basically just a basket of lies. He is also an anti-intellectual demagogue masquerading as a "doctor" and it is no shock that one of his allies is Dinesh DSouza."

Non-responsive. You didn't answer the question. Just an ad hominem attack.

"Specifically, what liberty destroying tyrannies are we under threat from by the "unchecked majority"? I mean, just list the top ten or so."

Just look at how WA, OR, CA, IL, NY, and other left dominated states are run. Criminals are no longer held to account, people are not allowed to defend themselves, citizens are stripped of their gun rights, property values destroyed, banks target certain businesses to be defunded, etc. In Canada protesters had their bank accounts frozen, a British politician had his ability to bank stripped from him.

McLaddie
"It is really a no-brainer: More guns, more gun violence/deaths."

Simply and demonstrably not true. Dr. Lott proved years ago that states with higher gun ownership rates had lower crime rates. Just look at criminal shootings in LA, DC, Chicago, NY, Austin, and other cities with strict gun control. What you've done is use the CDC which puts suicide and murder under a catchall 'gun deaths' category which inflates the numbers. Other countries have much more strict gun control laws and much higher suicide rates i.e. France, Russia, and Japan. Look at what's happening in Mexico, a country where it's illegal to own anything larger than a .22.

"The law rescinded addressed legally determined and/or arrested for serious mental conditions, INCLUDING violent behavior, Domestic abuse and and threatening behavior. This didn't address those with depression or bi-polar diagnosis etc."

Not true, those 'red flag' laws stripped people, including veterans of their right to own firearms if they sought mental counseling. As for domestic violence being grounds to strip someone of their right to own a gun…why? Can you name any other Constitutional right that you lose because you're convicted of a misdemeanor?

People are not being denied the use of their property. They're being denied the privilege of driving on a public roadway. Your argument is non-sensical.

"Who is advocating getting rid of the second amendment? And how many make up those 'leftist politicians?' I'd love some quotes on this."

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." – Joe Biden

"I don't believe people should to be able to own guns." – Barak Obama

It's really very easy to find quotes and positions of left wing politicians who want to ban gun ownership. Anyone who says otherwise is, I believe, working from a position of willful ignorance.

"I don't need to be religious to believe that such acts of killing and calls for eradiation are evil."

But where did the idea that killing and eradication are evil come from? Spoiler: western religion and the Enlightenment.

Once again evil = denying gun ownership…..jeez.

Why would any sane person think that someone diagnosed as – say – psychotically violent should be allowed free access to lethal force?

As for domestic violence being grounds to strip someone of their right to own a gun…why?

Because they might go from hitting someone and putting them in hospital to shooting them?

Why are your sympathies always with the violent perpetrator and never with their victims? Why are you always so vociferous about the right to own guns and never about the right to not be shot?

There's always an excuse – this place is worse, more people die from XYZ… and so guns should be left alone.

Which is very like saying – heart attacks kill more people than cancer, so let's stop looking for cures for cancer.

Other countries manage to have high gun ownership without the same level of gun crime. Of course they also tend to say that assault rifles are not required to hunt deer….sensible gun control. Like sensible speed limits. Like sensible building regulations…like, well, every other area of life that has regulation in order to allow a large number of people to do something without causing harm to others.

The idea of killing as evil comes not from religion but from peoples' historical ambivalence to having their lives violently curtailed at the whim of another. Most people don't want to die – as true today as it was in Ancient Sumeria. Religion just provided an evolving methodology for codification of basic human rights.

Dn, yes. And if you are unfamiliar with Lott's work you are arguing without essential data.

crimeresearch.org

Dn Jackson:

Thank you for those quotes. I can see we are talking passed each other. I asked for those who are wanting to axe the 2nd Amendment. Often quotes can be taken out of context. The banning and such has been directed at assault rifles, apart from Mr. Obama's opinion.

The same goes for Dr. Lott what claimed 25 years ago. [1998] Assuming for the moment that he did prove two decades ago that states with higher gun ownership rates had lower crime rates, that means that states with lower crime rates still have the highest rates of gun violence--48,000 deaths nation-wide last year alone, and very, very few of those were self-defense cases--and none using assault rifles…but gun violence is the leading cause of death for children age 10 and under and assault rifles are a major factor. I believe the link you provided also shows those statistics.

From all the polls I have seen, the majority of NRA members favor stiffer gun registration and safety laws. That could/should be a start. Society requires driver training and passing a test, but nothing for gun safety? Guns kill the same numbers as cars. The NRA used to push that hard in the 1970s and 1980s for gun safety laws, then it was 'They'll have to take my gun from my cold dead hands' and NO restrictions became the mantra.

"And? Although what you say isnt necessarily true, how would it be worse than the current system where the elections are decided by a handful of the same medium sized states?"

Because the smaller rural states would have no say in the election. Their interests would be ignored and their rights would ultimately be trampled. Look how major cities are run now. Single party rule for decades on end and all things valued by rural populations are ignored. Think Chicago on a national scale.

When the rural states cant interfere with how the cities are run, their rights are being trampled? That's more of an argument to reduce rural influence.

"And why are the states at odds with each other anyway?"

It is the nature of mankind. Different populations, different values, different priorities. It's always been this way and likely always will be. Even in the most totalitarian states, (Nazi Germany, USSR, Cuba, etc.), there is still a population that values things the ruling class doesn't which leads to friction.

It's not the nature of mankind; it's the way Dennis Praeger views mankind and he can take his view and …
What youre saying is just a recipe for the rural states to be happy they can stay in their rural state space and enjoy that lifestyle. Don't know what this has to do with totalitarianism. Frankly, youre making it sound that along with Praeger the rural states are paranoid. I'm not that worried because I don't think you speak for them but that's the way it's sounding.

"Under the current system, some states in rural America have twenty times the voice that the larger states have which is extraordinarily unfair but I dont see those states worrying about that. Eliminating the EC would reduce that sort of outsized power."

There's nothing unfair about it as long as you understand what the US is. The United States is a collection of 50 sovereign states that gave up some of their rights to a federal government. Each state gets a voice in how the country is run.

If you think there is nothing wrong with a state having 20 times the vote as other states, then that is a demonstration in favor of Fascism, not representation. Representation is one man, one vote; fascism is getting one's way irrespective of the way the system is supposed to work.

I was not familiar with Jackson State. From reading the Wiki article you linked to it seems very different than Kent State. Since all the windows in one building were broken it seems the police did believe they were under fire and were responding to that. It sounds like a bad response.

It's not very different, it's very similar. Which is why President Nixon formed a commission to investigate both at the same time.

"Well, let's see, pick a Praeger U video, any video. Dennis Praeger is one of the most dishonest political performance artists in the USA who wants to impose his ridiculously backward, ultra religious views on the country and doesn't care how many lies he tells to get his way. He lies about the facts, he lies about the past, he lies about the present. He is basically just a basket of lies. He is also an anti-intellectual demagogue masquerading as a "doctor" and it is no shock that one of his allies is Dinesh DSouza."

Non-responsive. You didn't answer the question. Just an ad hominem attack.

It's a perfect response. He fabricates and manipulates events to achieve the results he wants. I find everything he publishes to be about as wrong minded as one could hope for. Further, I would put any works based on his deceits into a problematic category.

"Specifically, what liberty destroying tyrannies are we under threat from by the "unchecked majority"? I mean, just list the top ten or so."

Just look at how WA, OR, CA, IL, NY, and other left dominated states are run. Criminals are no longer held to account, people are not allowed to defend themselves, citizens are stripped of their gun rights, property values destroyed, banks target certain businesses to be defunded, etc. In Canada protesters had their bank accounts frozen, a British politician had his ability to bank stripped from him.

Talk about not answering the question. You can add broad, sweeping, inaccurate generalities. What liberties are threatened? Canada and the UK have nothing to do with this.

Simply and demonstrably not true. Dr. Lott proved years ago that states with higher gun ownership rates had lower crime rates. Just look at criminal shootings in LA, DC, Chicago, NY, Austin, and other cities with strict gun control. What you've done is use the CDC which puts suicide and murder under a catchall 'gun deaths' category which inflates the numbers. Other countries have much more strict gun control laws and much higher suicide rates i.e. France, Russia, and Japan. Look at what's happening in Mexico, a country where it's illegal to own anything larger than a .22.

Dr Lott has proved nothing of the sort. He has an opinion and that's it. An opinion which goes against every single other expert in the field. And even Lott's conclusions often portray the USA as one of the worst spots for gun violence. He is also a captive interest of the NRA, the Gun Industry and several Militia groups.

Additionally, the states with the highest gun crime rates and gun deaths are the states with the most liberal gun laws.

"The law rescinded addressed legally determined and/or arrested for serious mental conditions, INCLUDING violent behavior, Domestic abuse and and threatening behavior. This didn't address those with depression or bi-polar diagnosis etc."

Not true, those 'red flag' laws stripped people, including veterans of their right to own firearms if they sought mental counseling.

Sounds like a wise precaution and exactly what a law like that should effect.

As for domestic violence being grounds to strip someone of their right to own a gun…why? Can you name any other Constitutional right that you lose because you're convicted of a misdemeanor?

I'm not sure where you're going with this. However, owning a gun isn't an absolute Constitutional right. Please spend some time to understand the law.

People are not being denied the use of their property. They're being denied the privilege of driving on a public roadway. Your argument is non-sensical.

Think about guns the same way, they're not being denied the use of their property, theyre being denied the privilege of carrying guns in public spaces.

Thank you for those quotes. I can see we are talking passed each other. I asked for those who are wanting to axe the 2nd Amendment. Often quotes can be taken out of context. The banning and such has been directed at assault rifles, apart from Mr. Obama's opinion.

I wouldnt mind eliminating the 2nd Amendment along with rewriting some other parts of the Constitution. I think we're heading this way. Unfortunately, the Liberals are inept with policy changes like this.

Banning assault rifles isnt going to solve the problem either. All that needs doing is to eliminate the law that gives immunity from civil liability to the gun industry and the problem will rapidly resolve itself.

I wouldnt mind eliminating the 2nd Amendment (just as Hitler did?) along with rewriting some other parts of the Constitution. I think we're heading this way. Unfortunately, the Liberals are inept with policy changes like this.

Au pas de Charge, you are the reason the 2nd Amendment exists but feel completely free to try and eliminate it – please.

Some advice, just don't try it in Tennessee.

Wolfhag

An attempt to eliminate the Second would be grounds for revolution. Seriously. Because self-defense is a natural right not dependent on government. But government is created by the social contract to protect natural rights. And if it fails to do that, and instead violates them in "a long train of abuses' that "evince a design" to enslave, it is both a right and a duty to change governments.

So better not try. Unless, you know, you WANT another civil war??

I was not familiar with Jackson State. From reading the Wiki article you linked to it seems very different than Kent State. Since all the windows in one building were broken it seems the police did believe they were under fire and were responding to that. It sounds like a bad response.

In both cases, it was a bad response. At Kent State it was the National Guard, young men untrained and unexperienced in crowd control, yet with live ammo. They got nervous. At Jackson, there was a racial component to the protests. Law enforcement got nervous.

Emotions ran high during the Viet Nam War. Folks thought the U.S. was coming apart because there were strong feelings. Much like today, it was difficult to discuss the issues without absolutes being thrown up as solutions.

So here we are, get rid of the second amendment and have civil war or don't do anything about our serious safety issues with guns. Scores of dead children and mass shootings being the unstoppable price of liberty… And the only solution is more guns. Even though such shootings have increased with more guns. The only countries in the world with more guns and gun deaths are war zones.

The majority of Americans [70%] want to see stronger gun controls. The people between the extremes.

A very small number [single digits] want to end the 2nd Amendment or the opposite, deny any governmental controls.

And until the mid-1970s, the NRA supported waiting periods for handgun purchases and laws banning machine guns. Since then, however, it has opposed them. It fought vehemently against the ultimately successful enactment of a five-business-day waiting period and background checks for handgun purchases in 1993. The NRA has done everything they could, along with legislation to hamstring or rescind the law including long denying the AFT the funds to switch from paper administration of such registrations to computers.

It is one reason the laws that are in place at the moment don't work well. Such as the GOP Congress 2021 stripping any gun purchase restrictions for the violent and serious mentally illness.

The 2nd Amendment was added because the new Republic, after the experiences under King George, was suspicious of a central government. They wanted the ability of states to defend against abuses of the central government through a state militia. Militias still exist today in a number of states. It was one reason for the weak Confederation--distrust of a central government. The Federal checks-and-balances are also built on that distrust.

The purpose of any central government as stated in the Declaration of Independence is to protect Life, Liberty and the Pursuit of Happiness. The government responsibility for protecting life does come before liberty. [if only because without the former, you can't have the latter.] Most all laws in the U.S. reflect that relationship between the two.

I think there is a reasonable middle ground. 70% of Americans do too. The extremists are the ones who keep the discussion buried in absolutes of either/or.

The phrase "the right of the people" appears in the 1st, 2nd, and 4th amendments. May we not assume that it has the same identical meaning in each? And the rights it refers to in 1st and 4th are unquestionably individual rights.

1. Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.
2. 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.
4. The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

We assemble as individuals. We are secure in our individual persons, houses, papers, and effects. And we have an individual right to keep and bear arms.

When the Cambrian measures were forming, They promised perpetual peace.
They swore, if we gave them our weapons, that the wars of the tribes would cease.
But when we disarmed They sold us and delivered us bound to our foe,
And the Gods of the Copybook Headings said: 'Stick to the Devil you know.'

Fwiw, Americans purchased 1.1 million firearms last month.

Fwiw, Americans purchased 1.1 million firearms last month.

I am sure we all feel safer this month. It would be interesting to know how many are first time buyers and who is simply adding to their arsenal.

doc Mcb

. . .unquestionably individual rights.

Well, of course. Who is questioning that? Are you saying that in every case, the liberties of the individual outweighs the common good of those assembled? [i.e. safety and security]

"Once again evil = denying gun ownership…..jeez."

Never sad that. However, whenever a government has stripped their population of firearms government has become more and more oppressive.

"Why would any sane person think that someone diagnosed as – say – psychotically violent should be allowed free access to lethal force?"

That's not what the law did. It stripped anyone, no matter their diagnosis, of their rights. All they had to have done was be involuntarily committed. Even people committed because they couldn't take care of themselves.

"Because they might go from hitting someone and putting them in hospital to shooting them?"

By that logic they might stab someone, or run them over with a car. Should they be denied the right to own a knife or car? We've had about a dozen domestic murders in my jurisdiction over the last 10 years. None of the suspects had been convicted of domestic violence.

"Why are you always so vociferous about the right to own guns and never about the right to not be shot?"

Because the loss of firearms in the general population leads to the loss of freedom. One of the earliest acts of dictators is to seize citizens weapons so there's no chance of being overthrown. It's happened in Cuba, Spain, Russia, Germany, and others. "Those who give up freedom for security deserve neither." I'd also note that the people calling loudest for gun control in this country also call loudest for criminals who use guns not to be incarcerated.

"The idea of killing as evil comes not from religion but from peoples' historical ambivalence to having their lives violently curtailed at the whim of another."

Not true. As I said, it came from western religions and The Enlightenment. Aztecs, Thugees, Carthaginians, and others thought killing was fine.

Dn, yes. It is based on the idea of imago dei, that humans are made in God's image. That means we have intrinsic infinite worth. Without that belief, there is no real reason not to use others for your own selfish benefit if and when you can get away with it. Almost everybody is good when people are looking. But if there is no God -- or if you think YOU are god -- then do as you please. Just don't bite off more than you can hide.

"Banning guns is an idea whose time has come." – Joe Biden

"I don't believe people should to be able to own guns." – Barak Obama

It's really very easy to find quotes and positions of left wing politicians who want to ban gun ownership. Anyone who says otherwise is, I believe, working from a position of willful ignorance.

So easy, in fact, that you've had to use a Joe Biden quote from 1993!
PDF link

Otherwise known as "Grabbing for Straws"

But where did the idea that killing and eradication are evil come from? Spoiler: western religion and the Enlightenment.

This isn't true and even if it were, which it isn't, large numbers of Christians have apparently ignored the idea.

I am sure we all feel safer this month. It would be interesting to know how many are first time buyers and who is simply adding to their arsenal.

It isn't about safety, it's about paranoia. Just the sort of people whom you wouldn't want to own guns and might be worried they'd be diagnosed under a mental illness disorder statute.

An attempt to eliminate the Second would be grounds for revolution. Seriously. Because self-defense is a natural right not dependent on government.

If this is true then we don't need the Second Amendment. Think it through.

Never sad that. However, whenever a government has stripped their population of firearms government has become more and more oppressive.

Like New Zealand? Or in Serbia where the citizens demanded that the government collect all guns and they themselves turned them in?

Not true. As I said, it came from western religions and The Enlightenment. Aztecs, Thugees, Carthaginians, and others thought killing was fine.

Well it's a darn good thing they didn't have guns because it seems like those Western religion types who thought killing was wrong were able to kill them first.

Well, of course. Who is questioning that? Are you saying that in every case, the liberties of the individual outweighs the common good of those assembled? [i.e. safety and security]

To test this tenet, try asserting individual liberties which he might not be accord with and verify if the individual's right is still absolute.

In any case, overturning this law would make the gun industry accountable for their words and deeds. That would allow gun owners to continue to buy guns and make the industry more responsible.

Protection of Lawful Commerce in Arms Act
link

link

This law, more than any other item has made the NRA and the Gun Industry the monstrosities that they currently are. Additionally, they are the originators of the concept that "People are coming to take your guns"

That's not what the law did. It stripped anyone, no matter their diagnosis, of their rights. All they had to have done was be involuntarily committed. Even people committed because they couldn't take care of themselves.

This is inaccurate because the law never took effect thus the law never did anything. The law was repealed before it could take effect and in secret probably because it would've raised alarm bells from that oppressive majority.

Considering how difficult it is to get mental health care of any sort in this country, if someone were involuntarily committed it would need to be an extreme case and one where they really shouldn't have firearms.

I wouldnt mind eliminating the 2nd Amendment (just as Hitler did?) along with rewriting some other parts of the Constitution. I think we're heading this way. Unfortunately, the Liberals are inept with policy changes like this.

I wasnt aware that Hitler eliminated the 2nd Amendment.

Au pas de Charge, you are the reason the 2nd Amendment exists but feel completely free to try and eliminate it – please.

I also wasnt aware that the 2nd Amendment exists specifically to prevent the 2nd Amendment from elimination.

I will indeed feel free to do whatever I like with or without your approval. I'm probably not as much of a Constitutional or legal expert as some of the other scholars on this board but I do pride myself on identifying trends in US society, especially when certain viewpoints have gone too far.

Some advice, just don't try it in Tennessee.

Wolfhag

I do appreciate advice from men of letters like yourself but being a regular guy, perhaps you could clarify it for me a bit?

What exactly do you think might happen in Tennessee? I know that it wouldnt involve shooting me because that would sort of underline the idea that 2nd Amendment/Gun Rights enthusiasts fight free speech, citizen action and democracy with firearm violence and that cant be the case because they're always touting that only "criminals" are like that. Having cleared that up, perhaps you could regale us with plans to put a stop to my 1st Amendment speech?

We do not have the right to keep and bear arms because of the Second Amendment. We have NATURAL rights, anterior to government, of self-defense, and when necessary, of revolution.

Government is created by social contract to protect us in our natural liberties and rights. As with any contract, the failure of one party to abide by the terms releases the other party from the contract. As the Declaration states, the failures of government must be more than light and transient. There must be a long train of abuses tending in the same direction which evince a design to enslave. But when that happens, the people have a duty and even an obligation to throw off the offending rulers and to create new ones. Possession of weapons enables that.

Charge is too literal. Hitler did not abolish a non-existent German Second Amendment, duh; but he did disarm his victims. Charge is bright enough to know that, which is why debating him is a waste of time; he is not arguing in good faith.

McLaddie,

"Thank you for those quotes. I can see we are talking passed each other. I asked for those who are wanting to axe the 2nd Amendment. Often quotes can be taken out of context. The banning and such has been directed at assault rifles, apart from Mr. Obama's opinion."

I just used a couple of quick. My next post will be more quotes.

"The same goes for Dr. Lott what claimed 25 years ago. [1998] Assuming for the moment that he did prove two decades ago that states with higher gun ownership rates had lower crime rates,"

Dr. Lott is still researching and still writing. He actually started out as an anti-gun guy, until his research proved that areas with more guns have less crime.

"..that means that states with lower crime rates still have the highest rates of gun violence--48,000 deaths nation-wide last year alone, and very, very few of those were self-defense cases--and none using assault rifles…but gun violence is the leading cause of death for children age 10 and under and assault rifles are a major factor. I believe the link you provided also shows those statistics."

Again, you are conflating 'gun violence' with 'gun deaths'. The only way to do this is to combine suicides with murder. It's how organizations like CDC make guns seem more dangerous. As I pointed out above, countries with much stricter gun laws, France, Russia, Japan, also have higher suicide rates than the US.

Guns kill the same numbers as cars."

If you remove suicides than no, they don't. People killed by drivers breaking laws kill more people than those killed by people with guns. As an aside there are other ways they cheat to inflate the numbers. The CDC consider anyone under 25 as a child for gun deaths. So when you hear about how many 'children' are killed by guns you need to understand that this number includes gang bangers, turf wars, and drug crimes. A anti-gun group included the Boston bomber and other criminals killed by police as 'victims of gun crime.'
It's been a while since I checked, but more children drown in bucket than are killed by rifles. Additionally, more people are killed by hands and feet than long arms.

"The NRA used to push that hard in the 1970s and 1980s for gun safety laws, then it was 'They'll have to take my gun from my cold dead hands' and NO restrictions became the mantra."

They still do. It's called the Eddy Eagle program and is the biggest gun safety program in the country.

"From all the polls I have seen, the majority of NRA members favor stiffer gun registration and safety laws. That could/should be a start."

I understand the urge to think this way, but experience has shown me that it's a waste of time. Over the years I've seen numerous gun control laws passed. We've been told they're 'common sense' and gun supporters had to compromise so we'd be safe. However, no pro-gun control politician or group has ever said, "Thanks for passing that law, we got what we want, we're done." No it's always, "Thanks for passing that law, now we want another one. It's common sense, you should compromise. As such I guess I'm firmly in the 'no compromise' camp.

Also, on gun crimes: red states are safer than blue states, if you take out the big blue cities.