• Hey, guest user. Hope you're enjoying NeoGAF! Have you considered registering for an account? Come join us and add your take to the daily discourse.

PoliGAF 2013 |OT1| Never mind, Wheeeeeeeeeeeeeeee

Status
Not open for further replies.
Still, if something is a natural human right, then we shouldn't be restricting people from it unless they have done something themselves to warrant that. I really don't see a congruency in situational restrictions and personal restrictions. In one case everyone has to follow it for safety sake or for the interest of everyone. In another a person is restricted outright for no fault of their own, for merely being born some way, a way thing might possibly make them dangerous later, but I don't think statistically really makes them that likely (depending again very much on where you draw the line).

I guess my problem comes from applying strict scrutiny to groups of people. I feel like it's akin to racial profiling. We shouldn't do things like that, because we have no real reason to believe just because someone's a certain color that they're doing something wrong. We shouldn't really have a reason to believe that someone with a mental illness (again, depending on where the line is drawn) is going to shoot someone. This should be given greater scrutiny than that even, if you believe it's a natural right to own a gun.

And I guess my problem would come under number 3. If you believe it's a natural right, then this would be a very very restrictive way to achieve that interest, in my mind. After all, you're barring a large group of people from having a right altogether, not just situationally.

Problem is with that logic you can't ban felons either. Either you accept that the govt can do it because there is a compelling interest to it or there are no restrictions ever.

As for #3. It doesn't matter if it's very restrictive so long as it is the least restrictive. Is there another easier way to prevent these people from acquiring guns?
 

Gotchaye

Member
Isn't that pretty much opposite of supply side in that lowering taxes on the working class would be demand-side. Supply-side focuses on getting the supply of product higher by lowering barriers to those who... well... supply them. It's based partially on Say's law, isn't it? That says that supply creates its own demand, and thus the emphasis in getting to a good economy is to create supply. Workers don't really create supply when you give them tax cuts. They create demand. At least the usual reasoning a worker would want a tax cut would be for demand, anyway.

I'm just trying to interpret the quote. That seems to me to be the distinction the guy is making - that supply-siders aren't necessarily about cutting taxes on the rich and hoping that helps everyone else. I would agree that he doesn't seem to be describing real supply-siders.
 

RDreamer

Member
Problem is with that logic you can't ban felons either. Either you accept that the govt can do it because there is a compelling interest to it or there are no restrictions ever.

I think that's my problem with the logic. Again, I do not believe people have a natural right to own a gun. At all. Thus, I accept the govt has a compelling interest in it. Now my question is regarding those that do believe people have a natural right to it, especially law-abiding citizens. Now where do we as a society get the right to rob law-abiding citizens of what is apparently their natural right?

As for #3. It doesn't matter if it's very restrictive so long as it is the least restrictive. Is there another easier way to prevent these people from acquiring guns?

Prevent which people? Mentally ill people? That's the problem I have. If the idea is that law-abiding citizens have a natural right to own a gun, then we should not be restricting mentally ill people who haven't committed any crime.
 
That really isn't relevant.

We can restrict fundamental rights based on 3 criteria.

1. There is a compelling gov't interest
2. It is narrowly tailored to achieve that interest
3. It is the least restrictive way to achieve that interest

This is called strict scrutiny analysis.

So because we don't stop people with mental illnesses from speaking doesn't mean we can't stop them from having a gun and be consistent.

True as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far in my opinion. There are many (good) arguments that restrictions on the mentally ill and even convicted felons are not (and will not be) narrowly tailored. For example, many felons are convicted of non-violent crimes. A law that deprives such felons of their right to defend themselves with a firearm based on their mere felony status alone is clearly overly broad. There must be some connection between the fact relied upon and the threat to the public's physical safety. Felony status alone is inadequate. Likewise, restrictions imposed on the mentally ill will require far more refinement than simply X diagnosis, therefore restriction. Indeed, most people diagnosed with any mental illness will never be violent. Clearly, depriving them of their right to kill citizens in defense of self cannot be justified by mere reference to a diagnosis.
 
I think that's my problem with the logic. Again, I do not believe people have a natural right to own a gun. At all. Thus, I accept the govt has a compelling interest in it. Now my question is regarding those that do believe people have a natural right to it, especially law-abiding citizens. Now where do we as a society get the right to rob law-abiding citizens of what is apparently their natural right?

Compelling interests only matter when it comes to natural rights though. It's the only situation it matters regarding the constitution.

Otherwise what prevents someone from screaming fire in a theater other than a compelling interest?



[/quote]Prevent which people? Mentally ill people? That's the problem I have. If the idea is that law-abiding citizens have a natural right to own a gun, then we should not be restricting mentally ill people who haven't committed any crime.[/QUOTE]

We have a compelling interest to do so. How do we ban automatic guns for everyone without it?
 

RDreamer

Member
True as far as it goes, but it doesn't go very far in my opinion. There are many (good) arguments that restrictions on the mentally ill and even convicted felons are not (and will not be) narrowly tailored. For example, many felons are convicted of non-violent crimes. A law that deprives such felons of their right to defend themselves with a firearm based on their mere felony status alone is clearly overly broad. There must be some connection between the fact relied upon and the threat to the public's physical safety. Felony status alone is inadequate. Likewise, restrictions imposed on the mentally ill will require far more refinement than simply X diagnosis, therefore restriction. Indeed, most people diagnosed with any mental illness will never be violent. Clearly, depriving them of their right to kill citizens in defense of self cannot be justified by mere reference to a diagnosis.

You said it perhaps better than I have, especially with your mention of narrow focus. I think that's the difference between no yelling fire in a theater and this, in my mind. There's a narrow focus that averts danger in that case. There is not a narrow focus when you single out a group of people and then deny what you yourself has admitted is a natural right.


We have a compelling interest to do so. How do we ban automatic guns for everyone without it?

Banning things situationally or partially for everyone are quite different in mind than banning one particular group from an entire right before they have individually done anything to justify the revoke.
 

HylianTom

Banned
scaliaafp.jpg

"I've gotta lay off the the red meat. Yikes."
 

RDreamer

Member
Who would even want to face up against Hillary at this point in the GOP? I'd feel like it's too hard of a fight if I was one of those big names. I'd rather wait until after she's done. I wonder if she announces early if we'll see some of those people not putting their hats in the ring. Someone young like Rubio, especially, would (or should) probably wait if she goes in. No use wasting your chance if you've still got some years left anyway.
 

Averon

Member
The complete 180 the GOP will do on the Clintons when Hilary announces her bid for 2016 will be a sight to behold. The GOP's sudden infatuation with the Clintons began during the 2008 Dem primary, initially as an attempt to try to sow discord between the Obama and Clinton camps, and never really stopped until Benghazi. How will they walk back the total love-fest they've given Bill and Hilary to spite Obama for the past 4-5 years?
 
Banning things situationally or partially for everyone are quite different in mind than banning one particular group from an entire right before they have individually done anything to justify the revoke.
Preventing mentally ill people from having guns is justified.

Natural right can be restricted in every case if it survives strict scrutiny analysis as it should.

The entire point is that restricting a natural right is situational.
 

RDreamer

Member
Preventing mentally ill people from having guns is justified.

How would you justify depriving someone of a natural right if they have done nothing wrong? Most of them don't shoot anyone at all. There isn't a narrow enough scope, I think. Now I could see banning people who have expressed explicitly violent tendencies to their psychiatrists or something. I could see that jiving with the philosophy, I suppose.

I mean somewhere around 10% of the population suffers from depression. Should they all be denied their natural rights if a very large amount of them will never ever shoot someone?
 

Magni

Member

I will cry. Tears of joy I tell you!

In other "news" :

WOOFINGTON, D.C.—Aiming to strengthen yiplomatic relations with the nation of Furuguay, Bo Obama welcomed a visiting doglegation from the overseas country to the White House Thursday for talks on a wide range of vital rufforms.
http://www.theonion.com/articles/bo-obama-receives-visiting-dognitaries-from-furugu,31075/

Yes, it's the Onion, but after listening to McCain earlier I had to read something intelligent.
 

The Technomancer

card-carrying scientician
So some right winger linked me to this article about how Republicans NEVER argued for trickle down economics:



http://townhall.com/columnists/thomassowell/2005/03/31/stupidity_trickling_down/page/full/

Somebody help me out here, but this appears to be a distinction without a difference.

This is the weasel phrase:
That theory is that tax cuts can generate more tax revenue for the government because it changes people's behavior, causing more economic activity to take place

"Trickle down economics" can be expressed as the idea that if you cut taxes on the rich, they will spend the money they are saving and cause an increase in economic activity that ultimately creates more government revenue, just like the part I quoted. But notice how he makes it about all tax cuts regardless of economic class. And we know that tax cuts do not have similar effects across income levels, tax cuts at the lower levels generate more spending than tax cuts at the higher levels (basic utility of money shit)
 
How would you justify depriving someone of a natural right if they have done nothing wrong? Most of them don't shoot anyone at all. There isn't a narrow enough scope, I think. Now I could see banning people who have expressed explicitly violent tendencies to their psychiatrists or something. I could see that jiving with the philosophy, I suppose.

I mean somewhere around 10% of the population suffers from depression. Should they all be denied their natural rights if a very large amount of them will never ever shoot someone?
We deprive people from using curse words on the radio. If we can do that we can deny the mentally ill from buying guns. How we define mentally ill is up for debate of course.

Narrowly tailored simply means it doesn't ban other people from not buying guns. Would be hard to argue that's happening.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
How would you justify depriving someone of a natural right if they have done nothing wrong? Most of them don't shoot anyone at all. There isn't a narrow enough scope, I think. Now I could see banning people who have expressed explicitly violent tendencies to their psychiatrists or something. I could see that jiving with the philosophy, I suppose.

I mean somewhere around 10% of the population suffers from depression. Should they all be denied their natural rights if a very large amount of them will never ever shoot someone?
Um...

Some suicide methods have higher rates of lethality than others; e.g. wrist-slashing has a much lower lethality rate than use of firearms, which results in death 90% of the time. 75% of all suicide attempts are by the use of drugs, a method that is often thwarted because the drug is nonlethal or is used at a nonlethal dosage. These people survive 97% of the time.[2] About one-third of people who attempt suicide will repeat the attempt within 1 year, and about 10% of those who threaten or attempt suicide eventually do kill themselves.[3]

Attempted suicide can cause injury. For example, A.J. Reed attempted to kill himself with a shotgun and survived, but the blast destroyed most of his face and completely blinded him.[4][5] 300,000 (or more) Americans a year survive a suicide attempt. A majority have injuries that are treated in the emergency room treatment, and then released. However, about 116,000 are hospitalized, of whom 110,000 are eventually discharged alive. Their average hospital stay is 10 days; the average cost is $15,000. Seventeen percent, some 19,000, of these people are permanently disabled, restricted in their ability to work, each year, at a cost of $127,000 per person.[6]

Imaigne if more people used guns when attempting suicide...
 

RDreamer

Member
We deprive people from usin curse words on the radio. If we can do that we can deny the mentally ill from buying guns. How we define mentally ill is up for debate of course.

Narrowly tailored simply means it doesn't ban other people from not buying guns. Would be hard to argue that's happening.

But that's depriving all people of doing a particular narrow thing. This is depriving a group of people all of their right. It'd be closer to like if we barred black people from talking on the radio altogether, because we thought they cursed more. If you were a black person you'd be pissed, and you'd have a right to be, because you very well may have never cursed on the radio.

Again, I think there are some congruencies to racial profiling. If in a given area latinos commit more crime is it then justified to put in place policies that single out that group? Even when on an individual level the person you're messing with may have done nothing but exist in that group of people? I mean, that very well could lower the crime rate, but it'd be a pretty shitty thing to do. And that's not even taking into account that what we're dealing with in the instance I'm talking about and with the people I'm talking about is apparently a "natural right."


Um...



Imaigne if more people used guns when attempting suicide...

Again, I am not arguing from my own reasoning. (and I suspect many of you are fighting me on my own personal reasoning, too, lol) Maybe I should bold this. I DO NOT THINK OWNING A GUN IS A NATURAL RIGHT. Period. So, yeah, just like we don't like fucking blind people drive cars, we probably shouldn't have depressed people with guns. It's dangerous. At the very least people with bad eyesight have to prove that it's good enough and wear glasses or get them fixed, etc. But driving a car and owning a gun are not natural rights in my mind, thus the congruency makes sense.

I'm saying, though, that if you do think it is a natural right, then barring a group of people from doing it altogether is really not something we can do, both ethically and possibly legally.
 

Mario

Sidhe / PikPok
Now, Clinton's not going to win Texas, but this helps make the case that the GOP has no one that can beat her.

Hey now, that "Generic Republican Candidate" consistently polled ahead of the others in the last GOP primary. They should bring him back out again. He obviously has the (non specific) qualities and positions that the base will rally behind.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
I would be perfectly fine with not having the "right" to own a gun. I should not have that right. No one should have that right. It should be considered a conditional privilege, with very strict limits on access. Simply wanting to own a gun and showing you can handle it properly shouldn't be sufficient reason to be allowed to have one.

We don't provide any form of public transportation, and we have encouraged people to live at great distances from commercial centers, work, and densely populated areas, necessitating the use of cars for the majority of the country. And yet, despite the fact that most people need to drive themselves around in order to access most of the places they need to go, we do not consider driving a right.

RDreamer: and that is the problem we are facing. Too many people consider it a "natural" right that is inalienable from a moral, ethical, and legal standpoint.
 

RDreamer

Member
I would be perfectly fine with not having the "right" to own a gun. I should not have that right. No one should have that right. It should be considered a conditional privilege.

We don't provide any form of public transportation, and we have encouraged people to live at great distances from commercial centers, work, and densely populated areas, necessitating the use of cars for the majority of the country. And yet, despite the fact that most people need to drive themselves around in order to access most of the places they need to go, we do not consider driving a right.

I know this. I would agree with this.

I guess I'm just doing a sort of thought experiment on the logics of that philosophy, and the fact that now our laws should adhere to the new understanding of the 2nd Amendment (until that's overturned). Law Abiding Citizens apparently have a right to own a gun. Our nation believes this, even if we here specifically don't. So I'm questioning how they can believe that, but also believe we should bar mentally ill people from practicing that right, even if they are law-abiding. And I'm wondering how long that could even legally continue within the framework we have now. Like if the court would hypothetically get more conservative somehow, or I guess even stay the same for a while.
 

This just happened on a friends facebook, the friend made the post, the crazy guy replying is some insane nutjob from Alaska on her friends list, and Maxwell is obviously me and all names have been censored to protect the innocent. But really I have no words, how does someone like this function in real life?
 
But that's depriving all people of doing a particular narrow thing. This is depriving a group of people all of their right. It'd be closer to like if we barred black people from talking on the radio altogether, because we thought they cursed more. If you were a black person you'd be pissed, and you'd have a right to be, because you very well may have never cursed on the radio.

Except there's no compelling interest in doing so.

Again, I think there are some congruencies to racial profiling. If in a given area latinos commit more crime is it then justified to put in place policies that single out that group? Even when on an individual level the person you're messing with may have done nothing but exist in that group of people? I mean, that very well could lower the crime rate, but it'd be a pretty shitty thing to do. And that's not even taking into account that what we're dealing with in the instance I'm talking about and with the people I'm talking about is apparently a "natural right."

I think the point is that profiling IS okay if it passes strict scrutiny analysis.

For instance, drugs. The gov't has a compelling interest to regulate drugs. It can prevent you from buying or making vicodin. It allows people who have severe pain and a prescription to get it but denies you despite that it's a natural right to put whatever you want in your body.

This is profiling too. You're saying people without pain can't get it.

Then there's abortion. Right to Privacy is a natural right but the gov't can and does prevent late term abortions. Only women are directly affected, obviously.

Children have their 1st amendment rights restricted in schools (not completely but to an extent). Adults don't. Again, this is discriminating against one set of people. Speaking of which, schools can force students into school - another violation of natural rights on a subset.

Strict Scrutiny is very tough to pass. That's why it's there. You're a bit hung up under people rather the right itself. What matters is rights can be restricted under specific scenarios, whether it's preventing cursing on the radio or the sale of guns to the mentally ill (which, btw, applies to all sellers).
 

Amir0x

Banned
Ain't no way Hillary would win Texas, but it's cool seeing her running so strongly at the moment. She really does have a chance to be the first female president.

Democrats gettin' first African American and first female president... if they get first hispanic and first asian president, wrap it up.
 

Trouble

Banned
Ain't no way Hillary would win Texas, but it's cool seeing her running so strongly at the moment. She really does have a chance to be the first female president.

Democrats gettin' first African American and first female president... if they get first hispanic and first asian president, wrap it up.

You have to believe.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
This just happened on a friends facebook, the friend made the post, the crazy guy replying is some insane nutjob from Alaska on her friends list, and Maxwell is obviously me and all names have been censored to protect the innocent. But really I have no words, how does someone like this function in real life?

Isn't it nice to know that those two nutjobs together have more than 2x as much political power as you do (by virtue of there being 2 of them vs 1 of you , and at least 1 of them living in one of the least populous states. I have no idea where you or your friend live)?

Just think: Every time you vote for the presidency based on the best reasoning you can maek given the facts available to you, just one idiot 3000 miles away can cancel your vote out. Same thing at the senate level, except it's any idiot within your state, or for the house of representatives, any idiot within your district.

It's sad to know that no matter how responsible of a citizen you try to be, the most irresponsible and ignorant citizen can cancel you out. Well, I guess that's not the sad part: The sad part is that the irresponsible/ignorant citizens clearly outnumber the responsible ones who know even a lick about policy, how government functions, and who stands for what.
 

GaimeGuy

Volunteer Deputy Campaign Director, Obama for America '16
Are there actually people who think owning a gun is a natural right? That sounds like an extreme, fringe position.

the majority of the opposition in gun control political discussions seems to think access to guns is a natural right as a means of self-preservation.
 

Chichikov

Member
Isn't it nice to know that those two nutjobs together have more than 2x as much political power as you do (by virtue of there being 2 of them vs 1 of you , and at least 1 of them living in one of the least populous states. I have no idea where you or your friend live)?

Just think: Every time you vote for the presidency based on the best reasoning you can maek given the facts available to you, just one idiot 3000 miles away can cancel your vote out. Same thing at the senate level, except it's any idiot within your state, or for the house of representatives, any idiot within your district.

It's sad to know that no matter how responsible of a citizen you try to be, the most irresponsible and ignorant citizen can cancel you out. Well, I guess that's not the sad part: The sad part is that the irresponsible/ignorant citizens clearly outnumber the responsible ones who know even a lick about policy, how government functions, and who stands for what.
That's a shitty way to look at a democracy if you ask me.
Isn't what you're doing here is basically lamenting that people you disagree with have the same vote as you?
 
We don't provide any form of public transportation, and we have encouraged people to live at great distances from commercial centers, work, and densely populated areas, necessitating the use of cars for the majority of the country. And yet, despite the fact that most people need to drive themselves around in order to access most of the places they need to go, we do not consider driving a right.
For me as an architect this is an interesting observation. The concentration of commercial functions away from housing is definitely not ideal. Everything is being merged. From hospitals to post offices. There's less and less of everything and the distances we need to traverse just to be able to do the thing thing we want to do is getting longer and longer. But that's off topic lol.
 

HylianTom

Banned
I'm actually wondering how the more extreme parts of the GOP base would react with a huge Hillary victory. How would they handle the idea that they're more than likely locked out of the White House? It'd be entertaining, and probably a bit scary.

Watching Scalia realize that the high court is gone would be fun. I loathe the man on a visceral level, but he makes such a great cartoon villain to the point where I kinda wish he were twenty years younger so that we could enjoy his ever-present dissenting opinions on court rulings.
 
That's a shitty way to look at a democracy if you ask me.
Isn't what you're doing here is basically lamenting that people you disagree with have the same vote as you?
We praise democracy too much anyway. More Plato's republic, less of this dumb people voting on shit they don't comprehend shit please.
 
Hey now, that "Generic Republican Candidate" consistently polled ahead of the others in the last GOP primary. They should bring him back out again. He obviously has the (non specific) qualities and positions that the base will rally behind.

Mitt Romney was as generic as they came.
 

Nert

Member
Isn't it nice to know that those two nutjobs together have more than 2x as much political power as you do (by virtue of there being 2 of them vs 1 of you , and at least 1 of them living in one of the least populous states. I have no idea where you or your friend live)?

Just think: Every time you vote for the presidency based on the best reasoning you can maek given the facts available to you, just one idiot 3000 miles away can cancel your vote out. Same thing at the senate level, except it's any idiot within your state, or for the house of representatives, any idiot within your district.

It's sad to know that no matter how responsible of a citizen you try to be, the most irresponsible and ignorant citizen can cancel you out. Well, I guess that's not the sad part: The sad part is that the irresponsible/ignorant citizens clearly outnumber the responsible ones who know even a lick about policy, how government functions, and who stands for what.

Luckily, your individual vote is arguably the least important tool at your disposal for having an impact in a democracy. Your ability to persuade others, raise issue specific awareness, apply pressure to members of Congress, and even run for office can all end up making a much larger difference. Most of the big fights and compromises surrounding actual pieces of legislation happen before and after election cycles, not during them.
 
Isn't it nice to know that those two nutjobs together have more than 2x as much political power as you do (by virtue of there being 2 of them vs 1 of you , and at least 1 of them living in one of the least populous states. I have no idea where you or your friend live)?

Just think: Every time you vote for the presidency based on the best reasoning you can maek given the facts available to you, just one idiot 3000 miles away can cancel your vote out. Same thing at the senate level, except it's any idiot within your state, or for the house of representatives, any idiot within your district.

It's sad to know that no matter how responsible of a citizen you try to be, the most irresponsible and ignorant citizen can cancel you out. Well, I guess that's not the sad part: The sad part is that the irresponsible/ignorant citizens clearly outnumber the responsible ones who know even a lick about policy, how government functions, and who stands for what.

Not even close to the sad part.

Sad part is that no amount of reason, logic, facts and stats will convince 90% of irresponsible/ignorant citizens that they're wrong and/are fucking fucking stupid.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top Bottom