Courage not cowardice; balls not bluster

[Quantum Quack]

Ok I will back off a little....

This is getting bizarre. Civil war? That was barely a riot. The US has had bar fights that got more out of hand than that. The EU has had bigger soccer riots than that. The main weapon employed was a single car - not even a car bomb.

It was barely a riot according to you and yes it would normally be a mere skirmish at best hardly worth reporting however:
It led to Trumps amazing statements and subsequent back down and then almost immediately the sacking of Bannon from the administration.
Domestic terrorism was often quoted as a congressional label.
Certainly a lot more than a bar room brawl and what was witnessed in Charlotteville was involved in this instance.

 

[Quantum Quack]

I can't figure out where you think the 2nd Amendment was even involved.

Millitia, like the 3 percenters believe they are acting courageously in defending the constitution by preparing and threatening civil war. They are empowered by the 2nd amendment to do so ( from their perspective)
Is their courage misplaced?

 

[Quantum Quack]

Caution:
Care is needed in response as the key words "3 percenters" will be drawing attention.

 

[Dr_Toad]

As it did.

You two argue the same point from both viewpoints with no apparent concern for what you might have said in a post three pages ago.

Well, y'all keep right on solving the world's problems, but ever so politely...

 

[billvon]

I would think in most cases my actions would be deemed reasonable unless it was found I used unreasonable force..

I agree, and that's what would probably happen. Which means you have a "right to violence" too.

But I bet you don't live in fear of someone coming up to you and hitting you in the face as you sat in that cafe. Even though people have a right to do so. People in the US mostly feel the same way.

 

[Dr_Toad]

On that point, I always try to sit with my back to the wall and facing the door.

 

[iceaura]

Millitia, like the 3 percenters believe they are acting courageously in defending the constitution by preparing and threatening civil war. They are empowered by the 2nd amendment to do so ( from their perspective)
Is their courage misplaced?

Their notion of being empowered by the 2nd Amendment is badly confused - but others, such as you, share that one.

I can't speak to their courage in general - the ones I've met are commonly timid, afraid of their shadows, in the woods, but that's a certain category of environment. I've seen them carry firearms on canoe portages in the Boundary Waters, I've seen them carry firearms when doing botany surveys on the Nebraska prairie, I've seen them refuse to walk an Itasca Headwaters Park tourist groomed winter trail under a full moon without a flashlight in hand continually shining into the trees and a nine millimeter in a shoulder holster. But lots of otherwise courageous people are afraid of wild animals, the shadows under big trees, places they don't know very well.

 

[Dr_Toad]

But you? Full of ideas and other stuff that you share and have seen, but not done?

Why not carry in the Boundary Waters Canoe Area? Some of the beaver and pelicans are really scary!

Good lord...

 

[Quantum Quack]

I agree, and that's what would probably happen. Which means you have a "right to violence" too.

But I bet you don't live in fear of someone coming up to you and hitting you in the face as you sat in that cafe. Even though people have a right to do so. People in the US mostly feel the same way.

We all have natural rights. For example I have a natural right to plan any act of violence and indeed carry it out if I can avoid being stopped. Natural rights are tied in with self determination and freewill. (psychology -philosophy)
However enshrining a natural right as a constitutional one is fraught with problems, as society generally is trying to become "civilized" it evolves an "artificial" right to the rule of law.
That artificial right to the rule of law is there to regulate and govern natural rights.
We all have a natural right to break the law if we so choose to.

However to enshrine a natural right to break the law as a constitutional legal right, when a society is trying to regulate itself with the rule of law is a serious contradiction and one that leads to compromising the primary objective of the rule of law.

Edit : Your post just proves the confusion that is present when discussing natural rights and those conferred artificially. Again there is a natural right to be as violent as you wish...the rule of law, which is an artificial man made right, which is there to solve disputes with out the need for violence.

 

[Quantum Quack]

But I bet you don't live in fear of someone coming up to you and hitting you in the face as you sat in that cafe. Even though people have a right to do so. People in the US mostly feel the same way.

You don't know the area I live in. The chances of violent assault are quite high. I have been seriously bitten, head butted, and severely shoved a couple of times whilst sitting at this cafe. Mostly by outpatients from the local psych hospital on day release. I have attended court twice to give evidence. One of the regular patrons committed a terrorist (ISIL) act nearby stabbing two detectives and shot to death by police. (2014)
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2014_Endeavour_Hills_stabbings
So uhm.... while I understand your point generally, in this case it's not quite valid... ( chuckle)

I might add the current situation is quiet and as you would expect in a highly diverse multi-cultural setting.

Do you think it would be better if guns were constitutionally permitted?
My guess is that we would have a blood bath frequently.

 

[iceaura]

However to enshrine a natural right to break the law as a constitutional legal right,

Nobody ever did that. Certainly not the authors of the US Constitution.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Nobody ever did that. Certainly not the authors of the US Constitution.

I have no doubt from my research that the Founding fathers had no idea that the intent of the 2nd would be interpreted the way it is.
They simply wished to facilitate a defense of their new Republic by making use of civilian militia to do so.
"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."
The well regulated militia's right to bear arms will not be infringed in the carrying out of that constitutional duty to protect the new Union of States .

 

[Dr_Toad]

The intent was that they wanted the people who might be called as militiamen to be armed and trained in use of firearms.

That was easy. Try harder the next time you want to deny reality.

Oh, shit. Never mind...

 

[Quantum Quack]

The intent was that they wanted the people who might be called as militiamen to be armed and trained in use of firearms.

to defend the "free state"... yes?
Anything else is an interpretive error.
The natural right for the bearing of arms that are not a part of the well regulated militia devoted to defending the free state can be impinged by law ( as is the case with automatic weapons) with out being in conflict with the 2nd amendment.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Piss off. As if interpretation is your sole prerogative.

Edit: I guess you won the battle, because I have no more patience for your heaping mounds of stinking, unthinking wisdom. Again.

 

[Quantum Quack]

Piss off. As if interpretation is your sole prerogative.

Edit: I guess you won the battle, because I have no more patience for your heaping mounds of stinking, unthinking wisdom. Again.

to defend the free state ..yes?
Sheesh! man it is in your constitution plain as day...
"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."

 

[Quantum Quack]

As I said earlier if the 2nd read with the word "and" instead of the comma then things would be much clearer.
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

 

[CptBork]

On that point, I always try to sit with my back to the wall and facing the door.

Not trying to accuse or make any diagnoses here, but that's a common, almost characteristic behaviour in people suffering from PTSD. Society can't function properly with that level of paranoia in the general populace.

I can't speak to their courage in general - the ones I've met are commonly timid, afraid of their shadows, in the woods, but that's a certain category of environment. I've seen them carry firearms on canoe portages in the Boundary Waters, I've seen them carry firearms when doing botany surveys on the Nebraska prairie, I've seen them refuse to walk an Itasca Headwaters Park tourist groomed winter trail under a full moon without a flashlight in hand continually shining into the trees and a nine millimeter in a shoulder holster. But lots of otherwise courageous people are afraid of wild animals, the shadows under big trees, places they don't know very well.

You know, there's a first time for everything...

 

[sculptor]

I seem to remember having already posted this.
So, at the risk of reiterative redundancy, I will "say" it again.

Guns ain't got nothing to do with courage.
Courage is a matter of overcoming your fears(of getting hurt) and doing that which is best to do at the moment.
Guns are just a tool. Like any other tool, they create a potential to do more faster and more efficiently.
Compare a table saw to a hand operated electric saw to a hand operated saw to a stone axe--- just evolving tools.
The tools don't matter. What matters is being able to act in the moment.
Mastery of the tools can make that more efficient.
But they ain't the key ingredient. They are just tools. It is the mind of the user of those tools that is the key ingredient.
"chance favors a prepared mind"
old phrase often used
If you have a prepared mind, then the moment where action is needed will favor that mind.
If you are under attack, and you ain't dead, than you have options. Exercising the best option is usually in your best interest.
Choose wisely grasshopper.

 

[Dr_Toad]

Yes, sir.

That's why I sit with my back to the wall. Not proudly stupid in a world that will bite you in the ass if you don't think teeth are real.