Attack one Right while Fighting for Another?

Discussion in 'Texas Bikers' started by Bownse, Feb 22, 2004.

  1. Bownse

    Bownse Guest

    And? That's one person's thoughts. Look how handguns are used in this
    Let's do. Let's not discount the positive uses of handguns and only
    look at the negatives like many of the anti-rights people do. There are
    orders of magnature more positive uses each year than negative ones. In
    spite of that, rights are not something you quantify to justify keeping
    them.

    I'll repeat something I posted a while back that's just as vaid now as
    it was then. And place do gun right have in a moto group? Everything.
    You can't expect to have one right protected while supporting the
    errosion of another just because you like one and dislike the other.
    Gun rights and Moto rights are inherently intertwined.
    ~~~

    Subject: Jeff Snyder
    Date: 07/07/2000
    Author: Onethumb <>

    Folks it's not about money and it's not about convenience to others.
    It's about freedom of choice amongst adults. Liberty and freedom aren't
    cheap and they involve higher risks than

    do draconian laws that lead to fascism. Think how crime free the
    streets of the USSR were when everyone was afraid of the

    Secret Police. Then consider long and hard if you're willing to pay
    that price just to save a couple of bucks.

    To paraphrase a related discussion by Jeff Snyder: The money argument is
    known as "social utilitarianism"; the greatest good for the greatest
    number of people. Speaking from the

    perspective of the USA only (for those here reading this elsewhere) this
    country was founded on an "individual right ethic".

    "From this perspective, individuals may not be treated as a means to an
    end but must also be treated, in Kant's words, as "...ends in
    themselves." The individual has an inherent dignity because he possesses
    a free will, that is, the capacity of autonomously exercising ethical
    freedom. Since each man must be recognized as having such dignity, the
    fact that one man abuses his freedom and acts unethically to the
    detriment of his fellow man, provides no justification for the curbing
    of the ethical autonomy of another.

    In legal rather than moral term, the fact that some men abuse their
    freedom provides no justification for imposing a prior restraint upon
    the exercise of another's liberty. (He may, though, be punished,
    <i>after the fact,</i if he acted with intent to harm his fellow man.

    For the sake of discussion, let's assume that keeping and bearing arms
    is a bona fide individual right. If so, the fact that 100,000 people a
    year murder others with firearms while one man alone uses a firearm to
    save a life, provides no basis for curbing the individual liberty to own
    and bear arms. <i>Each</i individual <i>must</i>, because of his
    inherent, autonomous ethical freedom, be respected as an end in himself;
    no prior restrain may be imposed upon his right to own and bear firearms.

    Actually we can go further. Under an individual right view, the fact
    that 100,000 people a year murder innocents with firearms, and <i>no
    one</i uses a firearm to protect himself or others provides no basis for
    prior restraint. Individuals must still be possessed of a right
    to own firearms because their ethical freedom contains the
    <i>potential</i of using firearms for good, if they turn it to good will.

    The key points are these: the individual may not be used solely as a
    means to achieving the ends of others; and the individual's right does
    <i>not</i depend on <i>others</i having, in the aggregate, used such
    right to the good, providing a net benefit to society as a whole.

    Now utilitarianism will have none of this. Utilitarianism is a
    results-driven ethic, propelled by the desire to secure a specific
    result, a particular "greatest good" desired by the greatest number.
    Utilitarianism thus concerns itself with the <i>outcome</i of the
    exercise of man's freedom.

    By definition, all matters, all concerns, are necessarily
    <i>subordinated</i to the acquisition of the "greatest good".
    Utilitarianism is not content to leave men along in their freedom, to
    let the chips fall where they may, with some using their freedom wisely
    and others to the harm of their fellow man, and addressing the harm done
    after the fact.

    It seeks to control or circumscribe the exercise of man's freedom in
    order to achieve a particular desired aggregate result; it wants those
    100,000 murders to disappear, or at least, to have more lives saved than
    lost. Thus it is willing to, and does, use individuals solely as a means
    to an end.

    Given that utilitarianism concerns itself with securing a desired
    aggregate outcome, whether the individual is permitted liberty to act
    depends on whether his fellow citizens are, in the aggregate, using
    their liberty to achieve the desired good. If not, the individual's
    liberty may be curbed or redirected."

    Personally I'll follow in the footsteps of much wise men than me. I
    choose liberty and will risk the risk.

    Since Jeff Snyder is such an excellent resource on Rights issues, I
    thought I’d send this follow up to my repost. While the focus of the
    discussion is the Right to keep and bear arms, it’s appropriate for this
    NG as the ideals and concepts apply to all rights. This is part 2 of a 2
    part discussion on Rights and

    …begin quote
    if they must be absolute, or whether they may be subject to
    “reasonable” regulation in the interest of public safety. I chose for my
    investigation one of the more long-standing, “common sense” exceptions
    to the right to keep and bear arms contained in the statute books and
    upheld by the courts: the prohibition against ownership or possession of
    firearms by convicted felons.

    I looked at the history of the exception, ending with a New Hampshire
    Supreme Court opinion upholding the prohibition of firearms by convicted
    felons, despite the fact that the New Hampshire constitution
    unconditionally prohibits legislation that infringes on the right to
    keep and bear arms, and despite the history of the amendment of the
    state’s constitution that indicated that the people of New Hampshire had
    rejected such an exception to the right to keep and bear arms.

    The courts upheld the exception on the grounds that the prohibition was
    a necessary restriction in the interest of public safety and welfare. I
    argued that if exceptions to the right were admitted on the basis of
    public safety, the right was destroyed.

    This issue bears further examination, because so many gun owners believe
    and freely concede that their right to keep and bear arms is “not
    absolute” and is subject to “reasonable” regulation. This concession to
    moderation or reasonableness, I will try to show, is fatal to the right.

    Yes, there are people who should not have guns. However, the point of
    the Second Amendment is precisely to deny the government the power to
    decide who those people are, just as the point of the First Amendment is
    to deny government the power to decide what you may read and hear.
    Rights are not reasonable – because government itself is not reason; it
    is force.

    If a right is subject to an exception, any exception, then the principle
    on which the exception is founded is, of necessity, superior to the
    right itself, else there is no exception. If the felon exception, or the
    prohibition of possession by those subject to restraining orders, those
    dishonorably discharged from the armed services, or those who are
    habitual users of marijuana – all current disqualifications from
    possession of arms under federal law – are justifiable because they are
    necessary or desirable to protect the public, then clearly the interest
    of “public safety” is superior to any individual’s right to keep and
    bear arms. In sum, public safety trumps a “right” to keep and bear arms;
    since it is superior to the “right”, it absolutely defines the scope of
    the “right”.

    Now the concept of “public safety” has no inherent specific content that
    would impose a stopping point or define a boundary beyond which it does
    not extend. For example, if the legislature determined that an absolute
    prohibition against the private ownership or possession of arms would or
    could be expected to cause a reduction in the amount of crimes committed
    with guns, such a law would still be within the goal of securing “public
    safety”.

    Yet obviously the “right” to keep and bear arms in this case has
    completely disappeared.

    Thus, an exception to the “right” on the grounds of public safety
    logically, completely destroys the “right”. The scope of the “right”
    shrinks as the scope of the concern with “public safety” has no limit
    short of complete destruction of the “right” itself.

    Try this for yourself. The list of federal and state disqualifications
    for the ownership or possession of arms continues to expand, and
    Congress and the states have embarked on a new goal of keeping all guns
    out of certain hallowed locations – post offices and other government
    buildings, airports, school zones – also in the interest of safety,
    refering a partial proof that the concept of “public safety” has no
    logical stopping point.

    Try to determine how far the government could go on grounds of public
    safety. If you find a stopping place that leaves any private person with
    the right to keep and bear arms, explain why the concept of “public
    safety” indicates that you must stop there, and cannot go any further.

    Another way in which rights are limited is to “interpret” them in light
    of the purpose they are supposed to achieve. For example, those who
    oppose the private ownership of arms sometimes do this: They will assert
    that the purpose of the Second Amendment has been rendered obsolete, and
    may therefore be ignored.

    Is this a legitimate way of imposing a limitation on the scope of a
    right, of rendering it less than absolute?

    The example I just cited provides an answer. While the “interpretation”
    adopted above is a misreading of both the words and history of the
    Second Amendment, the effect of interpreting a right by reference to its
    purpose is nonetheless revealed: it, too, leads to the complete
    destruction of the right!

    An example involving a right that the Supreme Court actually pretend to
    recognize from time to time will perhaps be more convincing. The Supreme
    Court has discovered that the purpose of the Fourth Amendment is to
    protect people’s “reasonable expectations of privacy,” and so this has
    become the Court’s standard for determining how far law enforcement can
    go in conducting searches and seizures.

    Now, because people’s expectations of privacy vary in different
    circumstances, the Court has concluded that our Fourth Amendment rights
    similarly vary.

    So, th law of the land now proclaims that your rights against search and
    seizure are stronger in your home than when you are in your car. They
    are better yet when you own rather than rent. They are stronger still of
    you build a solid privacy fence around your yard than if you put of a
    chain link fence.

    But you have virtually no rights if surveyed from above; since anyone
    can see what you’re doing from up there, you cannot possibly have a
    reasonable expectation from snooping helicopters.

    Your rights are stronger if you are a passenger in a car than if you are
    the driver. Personal papers are more protected than business records.
    You essentially have no rights in the records of your phone calls or
    banking transactions. A different Fourth Amendment rule for every occasion!

    So the remarkable upshot of the Court’ interpretation of the Fourth
    Amendment in light of its purpose is; never before in history has our
    government had so much power to search and seize your person, personal
    information, and property without probably cause and without a warrant,
    and yet never before in history has the purpose of the Fourth Amendment
    been so perfectly and fully achieved!

    It is important to realize that the destruction of a right by
    “interpreting” it in accordance with the purpose it is meant to secure
    does not occur merely because the interpreter picks the “wrong” purpose.
    It is a necessary consequence of the very process.

    Why?

    The “interpret” a right in light of its purpose is to render the right a
    means to an end. This act immediately devalues and dethrones the right.
    In a relationship between means and end, the end, or goal, is always
    superior to the means. The means is only a way to achieve the goal.

    Primacy is accorded to the goal. If the means does not quite work, the
    means must be altered, if not actually abandoned, to achieve the goal.

    Consider, for example, the choice of a particular [tuning combination]
    in order to achieve the ideal [performance] for an upcoming [race]. A
    specific [exhaust can] has no inherent worth; it is only relevant in
    obtaining the ideal [track] performance you are seeking.

    If a particular [exhaust can] doesn’t perform well, if the particular
    [tuning] you have chosen doesn’t quite dot he job, you reject it, or you
    change it. The end controls the means.

    By creating a relationship of means and end between a right and its
    purpose, we created a feedback loop in which the means is constantly
    re-evaluated and adjusted in light of the degree to which it is in fact
    achieving the purpose. This process has no logical stopping point and
    can also lead to the complete redefinition of the original chosen means
    (i.e. the complete evisceration of the right). The Court’s Fourth
    Amendment jurisprudence provides ample evidence of proof of this.

    A right, then, to be a right, must be absolute, that is, subject to no
    exceptions, and must be held or respected as an end in itself, not as a
    means to some other end. Otherwise, it does not stand outside and above
    the law, but becomes subject to it, a mere creature of legislative
    action, majority rule and peripatetic opinions of judges. If the right
    is not absolute, you absolutely have no right.
    …end quote

    --

    Mark Johnson, Fort Worth, Texas; IBA #?; CM #1; DoD #2021
    2003 FJR1300 "E²"

    http://www.bikes-n-spikes.org
     
    Bownse, Feb 22, 2004
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Bownse

    Bill Walker Guest

    Nossir.. you have been successful in proving the point of your immature
    confusion about the issues that Lico Reyes really addresses.. You commenced
    to slam the man for issues about guns and most of your rantings have nothing
    to do with the man, himself.. Your asinine allegations of some kind of
    platform that is going to cause "someone" to come and take your freakin'
    guns only proves that you are not smart enough to understand just "who" is a
    threat, in that regard.. I'd surmise that you, above anyone, have ever had a
    gun aimed at you, nor have you ever aimed a gun at another.. There are
    responsible and irresponsible, legal and illegal gun owners.. There are also
    many who have no business with access to firearms of any kind..There are
    also many valid arguments pro and con, of the gun issues.. Lico Reyes merely
    solicited support on this group, and without knowing one damn thing about
    the man, you attacked him about a gun issue.. That makes your own
    qualifications for owning a firearm, very questionable.. obviously you lack
    the ability to judge people.. I shudder to think how many of you nutcases
    are out there totin' pistols.. Sheesh.. how's that for the point you have
    made..??

    Bill Walker
    Irving, Tx.
     
    Bill Walker, Feb 24, 2004
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Bownse

    Brian Walker Guest

    Actually, your point wasn't made. He never wanted to discuss "guns".
    Even so, you still aren't able to discuss a subject on any level where
    any points would be made. If you're paying attention, you'll see that
    others around you have had more people to agree than disagree with
    points they've made. You haven't made a single point.

    I'm not against firearms, or owning/carrying them...I own a really
    nice (Sig Sauer) pistol myself and carry it when I feel I need to. My
    being able to discuss issues on both sides of the aisle and see points
    to a common goal makes me better prepared to discuss such issues with
    knuckle-heads who just spout stupid NRA rhetoric without checking
    their information first.

    I don't blame Lico for not wanting to discuss such issues with you.
    The first thing you need to do before challenging someone to such a
    discussion is find a little information about both sides of the aisle
    and see which points to make. Repeating NRA crap will only make you
    look foolish because almost everything they spout is from one side and
    from a bunch of frightened little wormy men who aren't able to discuss
    the same topics without scripts and "no questions allowed"...and to an
    audience of "sheeple" who will buy into anything they say/do.

    There's a reason why NRA discourages people watching Bowling for
    Columbine. There's a reason why NRA discourages people watching The
    Awful Truth. Your views of many things are so close to what's
    presented in either of those that if you ever did watch them and agree
    with points made, you'd look at NRA in a whole different light.
    There's a reason everyone who's seen it has agreed that you're unaware
    of your thoughts being right inline with the messages gained from the
    movie. The problem is, you're just too afraid to find out what that
    message is.
     
    Brian Walker, Feb 24, 2004
    #3
  4. Bownse

    Bill Walker Guest

    Yessir.. you tied right into him.. I'm not sure, "anti-gun coalition".. Are
    you referring to whatever the name of the organization, if that is what it
    is... That Sarah Brady is heading up.. Is that the "anti-gun coalition" you
    keep talking about..

    He could
    Lico Reyes didn't avoid any issue.. You may notice that he isn't a regular
    poster in this group.. Response to you would undoubtedly result in the same
    outcome as I have had with you...

    Anything here perceived as an "attack" by me was defending
    I think the "attack" was self inflicted.. LOL

    I have indeed had a gun aimed at me and
    That is indeed good to hear..
    I
    Many people have different opinions than mine.. For the most part, I will
    give them the same respect that they afford me.. I will also "give" as I
    "get"..
     
    Bill Walker, Feb 24, 2004
    #4
  5. Bownse

    Bill Walker Guest

    Then .. there is no "coalition".. So maybe you should be taking your pot
    shots at John Ashcroft and the Patriot Act.. The agenda there is more
    dangerous than anything you will see in your lifetime, certainly in mine..
    You are silly..
    LOL.. of course.. the "coalition" is about to take your guns away from
    you... You've got a vivid imagination..
    You have to call them the way you see them..don't you, son ? Didn't realize
    that "smirking" was a resort on usenet.. Yeah.. I've called a few names in
    here, as has many others.. Profanity has been used also.. Usually and in
    most cases, I am not the one to initiate the tactics.. So, that being said,
    you've got it off your chest.. Your above response, is self explanatory, it
    would seem..

    Bill Walker
    Irving, Tx.
     
    Bill Walker, Feb 25, 2004
    #5
  6. Bownse

    Bownse Guest

    Then .. there is no "coalition".. So maybe you should be taking your pot
    Not so long as the 2nd Amendment remains intact. The 2nd is the final
    check on power-hungry government; reaching beyond the limited powers
    granted it in the CotUSA.

    But it's all moot since none of this thread is moto-topical (other than
    the nature of government to try and usurp power from the governed;
    including freedom to ride).
     
    Bownse, Feb 26, 2004
    #6
  7. Bownse

    Bill Walker Guest

    Your effort to function as topic police is noted .. Your concern for totin'
    your pistol has been put aside.. Your fetish for the second amendment is
    almost as silly as your goofy assessment of the last line of defense.. There
    have been many examples of people who think like you, who have
    unsuccessfully attempted to defy government power.. The only solution to
    those problems are from within our government .. Armed resistance to the
    governmental power is an exercise in futility.. Unless the problems of our
    government are addressed and corrected, the corruption will persist and
    those rights of gun ownership and the freedoms to ride our motorcycle can be
    restricted, if not done away with completely..

    Bill Walker
    Irving, Tx.
     
    Bill Walker, Feb 26, 2004
    #7
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.