"Power to the People Empowered by the People"

[jhfenton]

A nice editorial, not solely about guns:

Power to the People Empowered by the People.

"Power to the People Empowered by the People
By Jonathan Davis Morris

<snip>

Our better welfare is a billion-dollar industry. From concealed carry statutes straight on down to seatbelt and helmet laws, we're consistently told our welfare depends on new rules, police powers, and legal settlements. We buy into this bait-and-switch every time. Which is great if you're a congressman -- since you can vote yourself a pay raise, collect a nice pension, and gerrymander your way to absolute power -- but not if you're anyone else.

When politicians try to protect us from ourselves, they often only protect themselves from us. That's a problem."

<snip>

[MrBenchley]

1. A site that links to

Drudge Report
Fox News
Lucianne
News Max
Rush Limbaugh
Washington Times
Weekly Standard
White House
WorldNet Daily and something called "Men's Rights Radio"

and has "Re-elect Bush-Cheney" artwork...

Other turds from this cesspool include...

"The Filthy Agenda of Radical Environmentalists"
"ILLEGAL ALIENS SPREADING DISEASES ACROSS THE USA"
"How The Republican Party Has Turned Around" (They once were ignorant, crooked and bigoted; now they're bigoted, crooked and ignorant.)
"Racist Hispanics" (No doubt they say out loud that white fatheads spread diseases.)

[el_gato]

2. why don't you address the points in the article bench

I haven't read it yet but if you have to use diversionary tactics you've already lost the game.

Now address the issues, boy.

[Superfly]

4. Hint

Ever since I put Benchley on ignore, these threads have really gotten more enjoyable...

[MrBenchley]

5. Because it's a load of right wing crap, gato...

If you want to wallow in the sort of crap that freepers are dumb enough to buy, be my guest.

[pnb]

7. I think gato wanted you to explain WHY its a load of crap

I'd be interested in that too

[slackmaster]

9. MrBenchley's arguments rely mostly on fallacious reasoning

e.g. a Genetic Fallacy as he has here.

http://www.nizkor.org/features/fallacies/genetic-fallacy.html

Rarely does MrB ever post anything that can't be characterized as ad hominem attack, straw man, red herrings, etc. I find it somewhat amusing to analyze his vitriolic rants on occasion because his reasoning provides simple, pure examples of bogus arguments.

[MrBenchley]

11. Whereas the RKBA crowd's rely

on crap from websites like this, peddled by some of the scummiest characters in public life.

[pnb]

14. You know MrB...

...to a thinking person, the subject matter is what would would make a writing qualify as crap, not the writer itself.

[MrBenchley]

17. Jeepers, pnb

how often do you have to pick up dog turds in the gutter and pop them in your mouth before you discover they're not all made of candy?

To an actual thinking person, the fact that this source is trying to pass off crap like Rush Limbaugh and Lucianne.com as sites to be relied on is the surest tip-off that no time need be wasted there. And he'd be 100% correct.

But to those twisted gumps infected with RKBA "logic," or whatever it is, a page that says "ILLEGAL ALIENS SPREADING DISEASES ACROSS THE USA" is a gold mine of "reason." And good googamooga, would they howl like banshees if anyone pointed out that this racist imbecility is yet another bit of racist imbecility that they've chosen to align themselves with in publlc AGAIN.

[MrBenchley]

10. Next ask me

if I care what gato wants.

[slackmaster]

38. Here are some questions just for MrBenchley

1. Did your present hatred for people who own, like, and advocate use of guns arise from a personal bad experience you have had with a gun or a gun owner?

2. How do you really believe your real name and address got on the National Rifle Association's mailing list?

3. Tell us about your father. Did he or does he own guns? Is he or was he a Republican or a member of the NRA?

4. Are you now or have you ever been a member of the Republican Party?

[MrBenchley]

39. Hey, slack

Tell us again how right wing pieces of shit have a right to troll on any forum where someone disagrees with them.

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=22570&mesg_id=22723&page=

[slackmaster]

59. RWPOSs have as much right to free speech as anyone else

Do you have a problem with people speaking their minds and joining forums run by people with whom they generally disagree?

The practice is widespread on political forums and DUers are just as "guilty" as anyone else.

So tell us, are you now or have you ever been a Republican?

[MrBenchley]

74. And they have to troll and pretend to be what they're not

because they're such repulsive dishonest pieces of shit...

"The practice is widespread on political forums and DUers are just as "guilty" as anyone else."
Prove it.

[slackmaster]

85. Use the search function and find it for yourself

There are DOZENS of old threads in GD and The Lounge where DU contributors brag about "infiltrating" sites like Free Republic and getting booted out.

I'm not impressed by pots and kettles calling each other black.

[MrBenchley]

86. In other words...

Your claim was a load of crap...AGAIN...

[jody]

79. Sarah Brady is a Republican eom

[CO Liberal]

26. Any Time Someone Links to a Right-Wing Wacko Site.....

...their issue is suspect in many people's minds. That michmews.com site doesn't look very friendly to a progressive Democratic position.

Interesting how the poeter had to disguise the source in a way that you have to click onto it to enter the cesspool of right-wing lunacy.

[MrBenchley]

30. That's become a tip-off

when you can't see the honest URL, there's a reason...

And you'll notice that yet again the gun crowd have linked themselves to a very malodorous bit of hooey that most sane people would consider openly racist.

[jody]

36. I understand CO, ignore facts that disagree with one's untenable position

That's a sure fire way to win a debate. :hi:

[CO Liberal]

41. No.....Just Question Why a So-Called "Progressive Democrat"....

...needs to link to a wacko right-wing site to advance his agenda.

[MrBenchley]

45. And not just ONE right wing site

But right wing whackos over and over and over...

[jody]

62. Facts are still facts regardless of whether they're from

what you call a "wacko right-wing site" or what others might call a "wacko left-wing site". :shrug:

[iverglas]

64. if only

... jody could identify some FACTS that someone isn't responding to.

...

...

...

[MrBenchley]

80. That's the RKBA crowd inn a nutshell....

Always happy to embrace a full spectrum of views from Rush Limbaugh to Lucianne.com...and none other.

[jhfenton]

48. I always appropriately title links with the article title.

If you are smart enough to move your cursor over the link, you'll see where it leads.

And still, no one has contested the merits of the article.

[CO Liberal]

52. It HAS No Merits

Because it came from a suspect site.

[jhfenton]

55. "shoot the messenger"

You want to "shoot the messenger" because you don't like the message. Sorry, but that's not a convincing argument.

[iverglas]

63. WHAT message?

I'm still only seeing a rant: a loud and long expression of an opinion. I'd be happy to rant back at it, if you like. To toss around a few anecdotes, and blab on about my personal feelings about people who advocate things I don't like for reasons I don't feel compelled to articulate.

I've never seen the purpose of doing such things ... other than to intimidate and to try to undermine any genuinely democratic discourse that might be going on -- not things that I make a practice of doing, or see any reason to reward anyone else for doing by treating rants as if they were worthy of my attention.

"Everything we read and hear now tells us that we need helmet laws, seatbelt laws, gun control laws, and more and more government regulations to protect us grown-ups from ourselves. God forbid we take a little personal responsibility for our actions. Government as "nanny" is becoming the norm in this country."

Deregulation -- the mating call of the right wing.

And a completely disingenuous attempt to connect two unrelated concepts, of course: regulation aimed at protecting the vulnerable and enhancing overall safety vs. "personal responsibility". Nope, doesn't fly. Just another rant devoid of fact or argument, masquerading as discourse. Nothing to look at here, folks.

.

[jhfenton]

66. "personal responsibility"

"And a completely disingenuous attempt to connect two unrelated concepts, of course: regulation aimed at protecting the vulnerable and enhancing overall safety vs. 'personal responsibility'. Nope, doesn't fly. Just another rant devoid of fact or argument, masquerading as discourse. Nothing to look at here, folks."

They are not unrelated concepts. Every time a law is passed telling competent adults how to behave "for their own good," we are abdicating personal responsibility. We're not talking about requirements for child safety seats. We're talking about laws to protect us, as adults, from ourselves.

Don't smoke pot -- it's bad for you.
Wear your helmet -- it's good for you.
Wear your seatbelt -- it's good for you.

People are even suing fast food restaurants because they sold them unhealthy food! Does it surprise anyone that a Big Mac is not health food?

And yes, we can do with some "deregulation" around here. Sorry if that's a little too "right wing" for you.

[iverglas]

68. rant rant rant

The issues you raise may indeed merit discussion. You are exhibiting no inclination either to speak to them yourself or to hear what anyone else has to say about them.

It is not "discussion" to state one's case without offering the slightest acknowledgement of what the opposing case is. In the courtroom, in fact, it would be moronic to do so. In a policy discussion, it is simply disingenuous. But then, in a courtroom one is faced with the ultimate disposition of the issue by someone who decides it based on the merits of the argument ... while in a policy discussion, one can all too often "win" through pure demagoguery. Like what you're engaging in.

You are perfectly aware that there are arguments in favour of the things you reject that are quite different from the straw folk you offer up:

Don't smoke pot -- it's bad for you.
Wear your helmet -- it's good for you.
Wear your seatbelt -- it's good for you.

I'm not remotely interested in discussing anything with anybody who behaves like that. You might notice that in the recent discussion of prohibitions on the possession of firearms, I engaged in no such antics, and as I've said, I don't reward those who do by responding to their pretense at discourse.

.

[jhfenton]

71. "pretense at discourse"

Sheesh, iverglas, what has gotten into you this evening?

If the issues I raise "may indeed merit discussion," you certainly don't seem inclined to do anything other than cry, "rant rant rant." It is not "demagoguery" to state a general opinion regarding the state of this country and the direction in which it is heading. You may disagree with my opinion, but you haven't really stated yours one way or the other.

And this is hardly a courtroom, now, is it. We're not writing legal briefs. We not citing to legal authorities. We're in an Internet chat forum having pointless little debates to entertain and possibly enlighten ourselves and each other.

If you do decide to state your opinion on the issues I've raised, feel free. I will be happy to engage in a discussion. At this point, I've merely articulated a thesis. Absent a concrete attack on my thesis, I will leave it at that.

[iverglas]

73. it is demagoguery

... to misrepresent an adversary's position. And that is what your representation of the argument in favour of mandatory seatbelts, etc., did. It is demagoguery to ridicule and dismiss an adversary's position without addressing it. And that is what your remarks about litigation against fast-food distributors did.

(And no, I did not misrepresent you as having misquoted Benjamin Franklin, as you suggest I did by protesting that you did not. I referred, in a post in response to one of yours, to those who did.)

"If you do decide to state your opinion on the issues I've raised, feel free."

I'm not real big on stating opinions. In fact, most people here have no clue about what my opinion is about much of anything -- other than what they have imputed, or seen others impute, to me.

I generally find it wisest to identify the issues, and what criteria someone is applying in forming an opinion as to what should be done about those issues, before expressing an opinion. Otherwise, it's just too damned easy for any disingenuous demagogues in the vicinity to represent my opinion as being based on, oh, hatred of liberty or fear of guns or whatever might look handy.

I'd challenge anyone here to provide an accurate and fair (i.e. not selective) representation of my overall position on firearms control, f'r instance. It's amazing to me that although I've never stated it, I'm nonetheless represented, and treated, as if I were the equivalent of a stalwart of the Women's Christian Temperance Union.

"You may disagree with my opinion, but you haven't really stated yours one way or the other."

I could say "seatbelts good, helmets good, make people wear 'em", if that is indeed my opinion. I could also say "jhfenton obviously doesn't care about little orphaned children whose parents die in car crashes", which would be pretty much the counterpart of what you've said so far. What would we have accomplished?

.

[beevul]

77. Just wondering.......

"it is demagoguery to misrepresent an adversary's position"

Is it not also demagoguery to appeal to the prejudices and emotions of a populace?

[iverglas]

81. me too

"Is it not also demagoguery to appeal to the prejudices and emotions of a populace?"

What I'm wondering is what your point in addressing this question to me might be.

.

[beevul]

84. No offense intended

Just a question of multiple definitions, you being well versed in word usage and all. Seriously. You would be the FIRST person I would ask about usege of a word on this board, after reading your posts. You use real and true words I have never seen before, until reading your posts. The one recent thread comes to mind. I dont even remember...gob-something, like I say, I had never seen that word before LOL.

Thats all. honestly.

[1a2b3c]

87. We should have an iverglas day

we could all write our post using the thesaurus and dictionary. :-) I knew kids in high school who would use big words they read the night before in a dictionary so that they felt somehow preternatural to us median individuals. Funny, i think most of them post here on DU. Although most stick to the GD or IP, the gun dungeon has its resident, iverglas. Hell, without iverglas, my thesaurus would be collecting dust on the shelf next to me. In closing i must say; I assay quotidian to attain the equivalent erudition of iverglas.

[DoNotRefill]

88. You'd think some people got paid by the word....

;-)

[CO Liberal]

89. Some People Have More Worthwhile Things To Say Than Others Do

You should really read iverglas's posts sometimes - they're very good.

[DavidMS]

92. Thats all good and well...

but... no one on wall street is taking persional respeonsibility for making my job more difficult. They first had an amendment (in 1995) to RICO prohibiting civil RICO securities fraud cases without a criminal indictment, then go on to steal from small investors for self enrichment. If conservatives think "persional responsibility" is for everyone, there better be a line of CEOs and Stock Brokers who took Greyhound down from New York outside my broom-closet-sized office so they can persionaly appologize first to me and then to certan customers who will never come in to see the broker I work for becaue someone(s) destroyed their conficence in the finantial markets. Which makes what I do (call clients to make apointments) much harder.

They then can walk to various houses of people who lost money in the market as a result of their manupulation and appologize, before being bundled off to a long jail term and forfiture of profits and intrest on them to victims after lawyers fees.

At that point I will take conservative talk of "persional responsibility" seriously. Untill then its having too sets of rules: one for those rich enough to make them and another for the rest of us.

Sorry about the rant. Yes, I have not had the easyest day at the office. I am offering a (litteraly) a free lunch and seminar on investements and only got 2 takers and 1 maybe of of some 20 or sopeople I spoke to. Who is going to turn that down?

As for the "smoking pot is bad" there isn't much evidence for it (still won't use it). Wearing seatbelts and helmets are excelent ways to keep medical costs down (increases both survival rates for accadents and decreases severity of harm to the body). Simply put we end up paying for it through increased insurance premiums, higher hospital utilization, more injuries treated at public expense, etc.

The fast food obesity suits have generaly been laughed out of court.

[iverglas]

44. what's to say?

It's an EDITORIAL. It's OPINION. It can only be offered as such -- as OPINION, that someone offering it might want to agree or disagree with. The only necessary response is I DISAGREE ... or I AGREE. The intitial poster didn't even do that -- why would anyone else??

The editorial-writer (who is apparently barely literate, apart from being blatantly a number of other unpleasant things) offered a bit of anecdotal evidence in support of his opinion. Big deal. I, for one, am not in the habit of either offering or responding to anecdotal evidence offered in support of an opinion.

Frankly, I'm left not knowing what exactly this opinion of the fellow's actually is, and about what. The fact that he offers no actual evidence or argument in support of it is secondary to the unintelligibility of the thing itself.

I see a rant. No more, no less. Why on earth would I waste my time "addressing points" that I can't even discern? Why would anyone expect me (or Benchley) to do that?

Hell, not even the initial poster offered any comment. Small wonder.

"I haven't read it yet but if you have to use diversionary tactics
you've already lost the game.
Now address the issues, boy."

A wise person might have read the bleeding thing first, and identified any issues that need addressing. Otherwise s/he might find him/herself demanding that someone address the issues in something that raises no issues. Kinda like in this case.

.

[Wcross]

78. Attacking the messenger.

Can't refute facts, attack the messenger. Thats SOP for some around here. Oh, I know what is coming. I am a) racist b) a Ted Nugent/larry Platt lover c) neurotic or d) a pantload of all. I am also supposed to sell it to someone "dumb" (anyone who disagree's) enough to buy it.
It is real hard to find a pro-gun article on an anti-gun site which seems to be the only credible source to some.

[Stilgar]

91. I noticed that too

the VPC lies and they are still held in higher regard here than most newspapers and news outlets.

also

An anti gun opinion posted in a newspaper has more weight than government funded independent studies to some people here.

[demsrule4life]

16. Worldnet Daily

that is one search you really need to do on how much it is used in other forums without people crying about it.

[MrBenchley]

18. It's YOUR claim...

You cack it up...

You weren't able to back up the other one...not only wasn't Newsmax ACCEPTED as any source of truth, but Zell Miller's article in it was taken as a sign of what a worhtless piece of shit HE is.

Which he is.

[demsrule4life]

20. Come on MR B prove me wrong :)

You know what my orginal question was, why is it people post links to newsmax in the other forums and there are no crybabies crying to the org poster about the link. I only see it here. So prove me wrong that noone in the other forums link to worldnet daily.

[demsrule4life]

24. The real question is

who appointed you the link police for the J/PS forum? I sure in the hell don't see link police in the other forums.

[MrBenchley]

29. No, the real question is

Why is it that the RKBA crowd has to rely on the most extremist and openly dishonest right wing propaganda outlets to back up their flimsy claims?

Answer: For the same reason that only pieces of shit like John AshKKKroft, Trent and John Lott, David Duke, Ted Nugent and Larry Pratt make those claims on the public stage.

[MrBenchley]

27. Already did that, dems...

As anyone who reads the other thread will see...

"there are no crybabies crying to the org poster about the link"
And that's because no one even expects that Newsmax will be taken for anything other than the cesspool it is.

"prove me wrong that noone in the other forums link to worldnet daily"
It's YOUR claim...let's see the links to someone in the other forum not laughing or jeering at World Nut Daily.

[MrBenchley]

19. It's YOUR claim...

You cack it up...

You weren't able to back up the other one...not only wasn't Newsmax ACCEPTED as any source of truth, but Zell Miller's article in it was taken as a sign of what a worhtless piece of shit HE is.

Which he is.

[pnb]

3. Terrific article

He who would trade freedom for little temporary security deserves neither.

[MrBenchley]

6. He who would buy freeper wisdom

buys trash....

[pnb]

8. Once again...

You have any actual reasoning behind your comment?

[MrBenchley]

12. Once again...

Drudge Report
Fox News
Lucianne
News Max
Rush Limbaugh
Washington Times
Weekly Standard
White House
WorldNet Daily and something called "Men's Rights Radio"

You're welcome to this trash if you want. But you're known by the company you keep...and the RKBA crowd seems to know only the scum of the earth.

[pnb]

13. OK, I got it

There is actually nothing at all wrong with reasoning in the article according to you but because the message doesn't jibe with your "view" on things, you're just looking for any possible way to attempt to villify it wihtout touching on the actual subject matter.

Thanks for clearing that up.

[MrBenchley]

21. Not even close to true...

but thanks for playing "What's my RKBA fantasy?"

"the message doesn't jibe with your "view" on things"
And DOES jibe with the view of Rush Limbaugh. Enjoy his idiotic, dishonest, racist company--it's one "gun rights" advocates are more than used to.

[pnb]

43. You know...

More often than not I imagine I would think Rush is full of it but you know what? I'd listen to it and then dismiss what he says based on the CONTENT of it, not just the mere fact the he was the one who said it.

Judging from your reactions, you'd argue that it was bullshit if Rush said that 2+2=4, only because he said it. There is no reason involved in that kind of response at all.

Remember, the sun shines on a dog's ass everyone now and again.

[MrBenchley]

51. Yeah, I know....

When the people the RKBA "enthusiasts" have to depend on for support turn out to be scum, there's nothing to do but bitch about how unfair it is for anybody else to point out what scum they are.

"you'd argue that it was bullshit if Rush said that 2+2=4"
But in this case, pretty much every sane decent person around says 2 + 2 = 4, while the bunch that are shouting 2 + 2 = 5 amounts to Rush AND Sean Hannity AND John AshKKKroft AND Trent Lott AND Orrin Hatch AND Jesse Helms ANDF Jerry Falwell AND Fred Phelps AND Jeb Bush AND Ann Coulter AND David Duke AND Dick Cheney AND Tom Tancredo AND James Inhofe AND Larry Pratt AND Ted Nugent AND Pat Buchanan AND the KKK AND the Aryan Nation AND William Pierce AND stormfront.org AND a bunch of the other scummiest people in America.

And they've all drawn up an enemies list that includes pretty much everyone who says 2 + 2 = 4. And they've got a crackpot scientist to prove that if you take the ordinary least square of 2 and control the size of the other 2 it IS 5...and he invented a fawning female student who backs him up.

"Remember, the sun shines on a dog's ass"
But no matter how hungry you get, that dog will never shit a Baby Ruth bar.

[pnb]

58. Well that could work...

...if one were to accept your "2+2=5" premise. Unfortunately though, that hasn't been done.

"When the people the RKBA "enthusiasts" have to depend on for support turn out to be scum, there's nothing to do but bitch about how unfair it is for anybody else to point out what scum they are."

Sorry dude but I never said it was unfair for you to point out how scummy anyone was. Just pointed out that it is useless to completely dismiss anything piece of info for the mere reason that it might has some relationship to scum. Huge difference there. And also, you're "guilt by association" routine is still laughable.

[MrBenchley]

76. Sorry...

But it has been done, and done to death....

[iverglas]

49. is *this* what that guy meant

... when he said "We ban the Founders from classrooms"?

How is it that so many of you people manage to misquote that little Ben Franklin thing so badly and so often?

"He who would trade freedom for little temporary security deserves neither."

Do none of you actually know what Franklin REALLY said? Do some of you know and just hope that nobody else does, so you can get away with misrepresenting it this badly?

How many times does this furrinner have to show you the real deal?

Ask google for yourself. Find the answer. Write in in a post 100 times, and post it up here for all to see. Education seems to be sorely needed.

.

[jhfenton]

54. Benjamin Franklin

"They that can give up essential liberty to obtain a little temporary safety deserve neither liberty nor safety."

That is the version of the quote with which I am most familiar. You probably object to omitting the word "essential," and I agree that it is an important word. But, silly me, I consider all of my liberty "essential."

[iverglas]

60. well damn, eh?

"But, silly me, I consider all of my liberty 'essential'."

I guess you're opposed to speed limits, traffic lights, and bylaws prohibiting jaywalking and dumping garbage in the street and restricting water use during droughts and requiring that if you build an external staircase you put a handrail on it, and a whooooole lot of other restrictions on your liberty that I could mention if you like.

Those things are all restrictions on your liberty that are imposed in order to obtain safety.

Some people consider their safety essential. It's kinda hard to argue that it isn't, doncha think? No safety --> higher likelihood of death ... and what's it all about, Alfie? Is staying alive just a tad "essential" to most people?

Most people, in fact, consider both their liberty and their safety to be essential, and have the sense to realize that some reductions in both are sometimes necessary in order to preserve the other -- theirs and other people's -- at an acceptable level.

Franklin presumably thought that the word "essential" MEANT SOMETHING in his sentence, since he put it there. And please, don't even try to say that HE meant that all liberty was essential, any more than he meant that all safety was merely little and temporary.

They that can give up essential safety in order to obtain a little temporary liberty ... are usually self-centred slime trading other people's safety for their own liberty.

.

[jhfenton]

61. "essential liberty"

"They that can give up essential safety in order to obtain a little temporary liberty ... are usually self-centred slime trading other people's safety for their own liberty."

Or they are the vast majority of Americans who have been scared into surrendering rights by the Bush administration all so that they can protect us from terrorism.

"I guess you're opposed to speed limits, traffic lights, and bylaws prohibiting jaywalking and dumping garbage in the street and restricting water use during droughts and requiring that if you build an external staircase you put a handrail on it, and a whooooole lot of other restrictions on your liberty that I could mention if you like."

As you very well know, there is no right to dump garbage in the street or drive a car in a dangerous manner. Those are limits on my "liberty" only in the most theoretical sense.

The PATRIOT Act, the 1994 Crime Bill, the 1968 Gun Control Act. Those are limits on my "liberty."

[iverglas]

67. keep yourself straight, bub

"As you very well know, there is no right to dump garbage in the street or drive a car in a dangerous manner. Those are limits on my "liberty" only in the most theoretical sense."

Of course there are such rights -- as YOU very well know, or certainly ought to know. If there were no laws to tell you that you couldn't do those things, you'd have the right to do them, right?

Do I have the right to wear pink socks? You betcha. If a law were passed outlawing the wearing of pink socks, I'd still have that right, it's just that the law would prohibit me from exercising it. As some are so fond of saying to me, aren't you supposed to be some sort of expert in the law?

People did indeed have the right to dump their garbage in the street at one time. People in many places still do. So do you. And if the gummint can't come up with a good reason for prohibiting you from doing it, you can go ahead and exercise that right.

"The PATRIOT Act, the 1994 Crime Bill, the 1968 Gun Control Act. Those are limits on my "liberty."

So are speed limits. I have to wonder why you and your friends aren't quoting Ben Franklin at them.


The non-disingenuous of the world recognize that all rights are subject to limitation, and don't waste others' time bellowing about 'em. They get down to the business of discussing what justifiable limits there are on rights.

There are limits on liberty that are justifiable because they ensure that safety does not fall to a level that is intolerable. There are limits on liberty that are not justifiable because safety can be maintained at a tolerable level without such limits. And there are a whole lot of things in between on which reasonable people, speaking sincerely and in good faith, may not always agree.

But people speaking in good faith do not misquote the authorities they claim for their position.

And reasonable people do not, in fact, claim that there is any such thing as an authority when it comes to determining what limits on liberty, or what loss of safety, is tolerable. They state their case, presenting facts and argument that they believe support it, and refrain from calling their adversaries, who are speaking sincerely and in good faith, opponents of liberty.

Just as Ashcroft, if he were a reasonable person speaking sincerely and in good faith, would refrain from alleging that opponents of his policies are not committed to the safety of the US.

I respect people who portray as "opponents of liberty" those who - reasonably, sincerely and in good faith - advocate certain restrictions on individual liberty, in the interest of general safety, no more than I respect Ashcroft.

.

[jhfenton]

69. "drop the self-righteous act, 'bub'"

"The non-disingenuous of the world recognize that all rights are subject to limitation, and don't waste others' time bellowing about 'em. They get down to the business of discussing what justifiable limits there are on rights.

There are limits on liberty that are justifiable because they ensure that safety does not fall to a level that is intolerable. There are limits on liberty that are not justifiable because safety can be maintained at a tolerable level without such limits. And there are a whole lot of things in between on which reasonable people, speaking sincerely and in good faith, may not always agree."

I agree with this. But we have clearly reached a consensus on dumping garbage in the streets and driving recklessly, so to speak of those as deprivations of "liberty" in anything other than a theoretical sense is absurd.

What it boils down to, is that I think we have already gone way beyond the justifiable limitations on my liberty to keep and bear arms. You apparently believe that further limitations may be justified. We shall simply have to disagree.

"But people speaking in good faith do not misquote the authorities they claim for their position."

I didn't misquote anybody, and I don't think anybody else intentionally did either. So drop the self-righteous act, "bub."

"And reasonable people do not, in fact, claim that there is any such thing as an authority when it comes to determining what limits on liberty, or what loss of safety, is tolerable. They state their case, presenting facts and argument that they believe support it, and refrain from calling their adversaries, who are speaking sincerely and in good faith, opponents of liberty."

You and I have have had exactly that debate in this forum. We simply disagree. I don't believe I have cast any personally disparaging remarks in your direction. I have in fact complimented you on your coherent arguments on several occasions.

There are, however, ranters in this forum to whom I am no longer going to waste my time responding. They, and those in this country who do seek to exceed the justifiable limits on my liberty, are "opponents of liberty." I am happy to have a reasonable debate with them, but they usually seem incapable of responding to logic.

[jhfenton]

56. My personal favorite quotes...

Do you have a problem with these quotes?

“If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace. We seek not your counsel, nor your arms. Crouch down and lick the hands which feed you. May your chains set lightly upon you, and may posterity forget that ye were our countrymen.”
– Samuel Adams (1722-1803), 1776

“A wise and frugal government, which shall restrain men from injuring one another, shall leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement, and shall not take from the mouth of labor the bread it has earned. This is the sum of good government.”
– Thomas Jefferson (1743-1826), First Inaugural Address, March 4, 1801

[iverglas]

70. yeah

To begin with, they're things said by dead white guys who had no AUTHORITY in respect of the subject matters they were addressing.

They were expressing opinions. Need I remind you what those are like?

Many people may like and share those opinions. So what?

THERE ARE NO AUTHORITIES on matters of opinion. Period.

I could share some of my favourite quotes with you, if you like. That might give you some insight into my opinions. But it sure as hell wouldn't "prove" my opinions, or make them "correct".

And me, I'd try to come up with someone whose opinions were a tad more likely to be relevant to the conditions I'm actually addressing in the here and now, not someone who never had a clue what conditions might develop after he was dead. Not to mention, again, who really didn't have a clue, or care about, the conditions in which a lot of other people lived at the time he opened his gob.

Jefferson ... that's the one with that little slave problem, isn't it? A fine "authority" on liberty, him, and perhaps speaking with just a bit of a forked tongue when he said that government should "leave them otherwise free to regulate their own pursuits of industry and improvement". Given that his entire "safety" -- financial security -- was built on the enslavement of other human beings, perhaps it was HE to whom Adams was speaking when he said "If ye love wealth better than liberty, the tranquility of servitude better than the animating contest of freedom, go home from us in peace."

Or, oops, were they just a couple of those ones I was talking about ... the slime who value their own liberty above others' safety ...?

No, ta. If you ask me, they were just exactly as disingenuous as their counterparts nowadays. I'll stick to my own favourite quotable folks, if it's all the same to you.

.

[jhfenton]

72. No, the quotes don't prove anything.

I never said that they did. But I still like the sentiments they express. :)

[pnb]

57. woops...

The exact words police caught me!!

Pardon me for not remembering the exact words of the quote. I'm sure that I completely changed the meaning of it altogether.

Other than that, did you have anything to say that mattered?

[el_gato]

15. so you admit you can't address the issues bench, OUCH!

that must hurt

[MrBenchley]

22. You must be getting way desperate, gato

to stick up for openly racist right wing loonies like these.

[el_gato]

33. we're all laughing at you now bench

[MrBenchley]

34. Yeah, but I just consider the source, gato

[Superfly]

23. 22 posts and not one discussing the article....

amazing sense of maturity here.

[MrBenchley]

25. Yup...

Shows what a crappy piece of propaganda the article is...and how childishly the RKBA crowd reacts when their peculiar chums are pointed out.

What was that rule again? Oh yeah...

"1. This is a message board for Democrats and other progressives."

[a2birdcage]

32. Democrats & progressives loves guns too!

[MrBenchley]

35. Funny how the only sources you have for that

come from right wing cesspools like this...

[a2birdcage]

37. Sorry that your so blind to see......

that other sources do exist even if they're not presented to you in the way you want. I'm also sorry that your idea of the Democratic Party and what it stands for is not the way it really is. It sickens you doesn't it to know that only a handful of people, if that, see things the way you do? Tough shit! Better luck next time.

[MrBenchley]

40. I can see perfectly well, including

seeing what a right wing cesspool THIS source is.

"your idea of the Democratic Party and what it stands for is not the way it really is."
Gee, funny how when the bullets for brains crowd tried to compile a list of pro-gun prominent Democrats it piddled out after half a dozen names...and was mostly a bunch of Zell-Miller-type DINOs AND Dr. Dean...whose position is cloer to mine than theirs.
On the other hand, I had no problem compiling rosters of dozens and dozens of pro-gun control prominent and respected Democrats...or long lists of the racist pieces of shit pushing the gun rights agenda in public.

[Superfly]

28. Bench, I have you on ignore

so it's no use replying to me. How do I know it's you? You're the only one I've felt necessary to ignore. I was getting tired of the whiny temper tantrums.

[MrBenchley]

31. Fly...ask me if I care that you're hiding behind "ignore"

"it's no use replying to me."
By jinkies, it's hilariou-I mean, sad when somebody cannot figure out how a public forum works.....

[RoeBear]

42. If you'd be less...

...obnoxious you wouldn't be on 'ignore' so often.

[MrBenchley]

47. Gee, roe....

That's very funny... I mean, touching.

[iverglas]

46. jhfenton, hey, over here!

You post a snippet of some third party's rant about something-or-other, make no comment, and never return?

What's it all about, jhfenton?

.

[jhfenton]

50. "a nice editorial"

Sorry. I had to actually get some work done.

I linked to what I said was a "nice editorial," and quoted what I viewed as the key point of the article. Even if the writing style is a bit "conversational," I happen to agree with the author's point.

Everything we read and hear now tells us that we need helmet laws, seatbelt laws, gun control laws, and more and more government regulations to protect us grown-ups from ourselves. God forbid we take a little personal responsibility for our actions. Government as "nanny" is becoming the norm in this country.

Happy?

[MrBenchley]

53. Too frigging funny...

"God forbid we take a little personal responsibility for our actions."
Say, which corrupt industry is it that's struggling mightily to avoid all legal liability by getting the GOP to ram a really wretched bill through Congress exempting it in a way no other industry is exempt? I know it will come to me in as moment.

[el_gato]

65. paternalism run rampant

[MrBenchley]

75. liability for wrongdoing, gato

Now go peddle your right wing "paternalism" gibberish to someone dumb enough to buy it.

[a2birdcage]

82. Once again please read........

I think you are now just doing this to be annoying. The bill will not protect them from all legal liability. Read the bill below to understand. If after you've read it and you still think they will be immune to every lawsuit then I feel sorry for you. Observe bold text for what the law will not protect them from. I know it hurts.

H.R. 1036, as was its predecessors, was introduced presumably in response to these lawsuits. The bill prohibits civil actions from being brought against manufacturers or distributors of firearms or ammunition products, or trade associations of such manufacturers or distributors, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by the injured person or by a third party. The bill further requires the dismissal of any action encompassed by the bill pending on the date of the bill’s enactment. Under the specific terms of the bill, only five specified causes of action would be permissible against protected members of the gun industry. They are (1) transfers where the transferor has been convicted of violating Section 924(h) of title 18; (2) actions alleging negligent entrustment (as defined in the bill) or negligence per se; (3) actions alleging knowing and willful violation of a federal or state law relating to the sale or marketing of the product, where the violation was the proximate cause of the harm; (4) breach of contract or warranty claims; and (5) actions for physical injury or property damage directly due to the design or manufacturer of the product, when used as intended.

[MrBenchley]

83. Been there, done that...

And it's still a disgraceful piece of crap to protect a corrupt industry...

[a2birdcage]

90. Once again, please read

I think you are now just doing this to be annoying. The bill will not protect them from all legal liability. Read the bill below to understand. If after you've read it and you still think they will be immune to every lawsuit then I feel sorry for you. Observe bold text for what the law will not protect them from. I know it hurts.

H.R. 1036, as was its predecessors, was introduced presumably in response to these lawsuits. The bill prohibits civil actions from being brought against manufacturers or distributors of firearms or ammunition products, or trade associations of such manufacturers or distributors, for damages resulting from the criminal or unlawful misuse of a firearm by the injured person or by a third party. The bill further requires the dismissal of any action encompassed by the bill pending on the date of the bill’s enactment. Under the specific terms of the bill, only five specified causes of action would be permissible against protected members of the gun industry. They are (1) transfers where the transferor has been convicted of violating Section 924(h) of title 18; (2) actions alleging negligent entrustment (as defined in the bill) or negligence per se; (3) actions alleging knowing and willful violation of a federal or state law relating to the sale or marketing of the product, where the violation was the proximate cause of the harm; (4) breach of contract or warranty claims; and (5) actions for physical injury or property damage directly due to the design or manufacturer of the product, when used as intended.