I Am Bored

Loads of viral videos, games, memes, lists and social networking for when you're bored. Updated every day, so visit often.
LatestPopularMost BookmarkedMost EmailedTop RatedMy FavoritesRandomChat
AllGamesFunnyEntertainmentQuizzesWeirdTechLifestyle, Arts & Lit.News & PoliticsScienceSportsMisc
Submit Content  





rss

friendsmore friends | add your site
Asylum

Holy Taco

Funny Videos

BuzzFeed

NothingToxic

Oddee

Mousebreaker

Online Games

Eat Liver

Online Games

Gorilla Mask

Full Downloads

Norway Games

Damn Cool Pics

Kontraband

Extreme Humor

X Hollywood

I Dont Like You

123 Games

Hollywoodtuna

Funny Games

Cool Stuff

Viva La Games

X - Vids

Smit Happens

Funny Videos

Funny Stuff

ebaumsworld



Back to Listing

7 Killed In Shooting At Sikh Temple In Wisconsin

Hits: 5643 | Rating: (2.0) | Category: News & Politics | Added by: piperfawn
Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next >   Jump to: Bottom    Last Post
HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:34:02 AM
Democrat.

Zeegrr60
Male, 40-49, Eastern US
 1958 Posts
Wednesday, August 08, 2012 8:07:08 AM
Republican.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:22:34 PM
@patchgrabber: While the states still retain quite a bit of power (after all, they dictate current gun laws), that power is rapidly falling to an increasingly powerful federal government.

It's a tough thing to relate the Constitution to the Bible, as the Bible is merely a collection of stories; the Consitution is still the law of the land. If society wants it gone, then it should be replaced (I hope this never happens). Until then, we should abide by our own laws.

I understand that we are not the same society and that rules must change. However, there are many of us who see a strong correlation between the changing of the culture and the undeniable sinking of the US. Just because something has changed, doesn't mean it has changed for the best.


patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:13:34 PM
@HA: It still works on some level. As you've pointed out, you're now a "socialized, interventionist society." Yet your states are still in possession of a good deal of political power. All I'm saying is that, as with any old text like the Constitution or Bible or what have you, as time goes on the original thought behind the words doesn't have the same meaning it used to. Your nation is much bigger than 13 colonies now.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:11:44 PM
@Angilion: "Yes, but it's not that way in reality."

You are very correct about that - unfortunately.

While it is no longer true that we can't have a centralized government due to communication or travel issues, I do not think that this was the intent behind the decisions in the Consitution. After reading into the writings of the many founders, most are led to believe that these men were primarily concerned with trying to avoid creating a tyrannical society. They knew that simple democracy does not work and that a central government alone does not work. They also knew that a central government was necessary for some purposes, but they vigorously opposed a strong central government.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13449 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 1:03:09 PM
Remember when the UK was in conflict with the IRA for almost 100 years or so? Those gun laws protected so many civilians.... Oh ya no they just blew stuff up and still got guns.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:58:48 PM
@patchgrabber: It worked up until the Civil War.

McGovern1981
Male, 30-39, Eastern US
 13449 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:57:53 PM
@Angilion

Yes yes please do old chap I shall break out the crumpets and tea! Show me where your extreme limits on guns have made you safer then Sweden a place much less controling of what can be owned.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:54:42 PM
Come to think of it, the UK does use a somewhat similar approach. Scotland has (and always has had) a partially seperate political and legal system to England and Wales.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:53:43 PM
@Angillion: Oh, I agree that the idea has merit, but in practice it never really happens. At best it's a mind projection fallacy, but ideal solutions not rooted in reality solve nothing.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:53:12 PM
It states the very few responsibilities of the federal government and then clearly explains that all other responsibilites fall to the states.


Yes, but it's not that way in reality.

The USA constitution is a pick 'n' mix from pre-existing systems that was a good attempt at an ideal for the time it was written. I'd have done the same thing if I had been writing it - look at the existing systems that I knew of and pick out the bits I thought were the best ideas.

But it was at least in part drawn up that way in response to what was until very recently a big problem in any country or empire and which quickly became an insurmountable problem with size - communication and travel.

Put simply, it was impossible to effectively run the USA as a single entity at that time. Local government was essential for practical reasons, not just desirable for political reasons. That's no longer true.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:46:23 PM
This is assuming the pure intentions of those making the laws, which is a naive assumption. Politicians, be they state or federal, serve their own interests and the interests of those who give them money. Corruption is inherent in the system and as such your "experiment" is tainted.


True, but the idea is sound.

I think that HumanAction's assertion that what they call a republic (which isn't the only form of republic) will eventually get the right answers is wrong because of the taint you refer to, but in some situations it might well make a better approximation of the right answer than a representative democracy with local governments that have less autonomy.

It's an evolutionary approach - multiple variations with the most effective being selected. The selection process is where the problem is in the real world, but the idea is sound.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:43:09 PM
@HA: But I'm not making any assumptions, I'm merely pointing out the invalid assumptions of your argument. If I were to take money from personal interests that wanted me to come to specific conclusions in my research that were not supported by the data, that is worse than sloppy research, it's deplorable.

Your assertion that if people don't like the laws they can leave is just argument from dismissal. Voting is how citizens exercise political power, not by running away. Having so many governments with enough power over so many issues make travelling from one state to another a huge headache due to the different restrictions in each state. Some issues are best left to the federal level so they can be easier-applied to the country as a whole. Now I realize that the political structure of the US is more geared towards state freedom, but as countries grow, the rules set forth over a hundred years ago might need to be changed.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:38:41 PM
@Angilion: I know you have no vested interest, but you should read the US Constitution some day (if you haven't already). It states the very few responsibilities of the federal government and then clearly explains that all other responsibilites fall to the states.

Yet here we are today. Somehow we have become a socialized, interventionist society with no more than a thread of the republic remaining. The Constitution never allowed for any of this - not even a standing army (Navy - and by extension Marine Corp are allowed).

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:27:40 PM
@patchgrabber: Yet you use this to attempt to completely dismiss the notion that fifty governments will find better legislation that one giant one.

Reading you statement about corruption, I am having a hard time understanding how you could then support one giant government with absolute power over fifty smaller governments? Corruption occurs due to absolute power.

With the states, if corruption occurs, the people may leave to another state. Therefore, the individual state has a motivation to stay honest (if people leave, tax revenues fall). However, people are much less apt to leave their country. If the federal government goes corrupt, what can be done?

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:27:35 PM
The point being made is that the states have the Constitutional right to limit our individual liberties as they see fit. The federal government doesn't.

Please read my post to patchgrabber about "50 little experiments in democracy" (I wrote it after your last comment). With a republic, we would eventually see the best answers.



That's an interesting and internally consistent argument. It's also the best succinct explanation of an idealised distinction between state and national government in the USA that I've read. I expect that the reality is rather less clear, but it's an interesting idea that I would agree with. It wouldn't be practical here (the country is too small), but you make a good case for it in the USA.

patchgrabber
Male, 30-39, Canada
 5718 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:23:41 PM
With a republic, we would eventually see the best answers.

This is assuming the pure intentions of those making the laws, which is a naive assumption. Politicians, be they state or federal, serve their own interests and the interests of those who give them money. Corruption is inherent in the system and as such your "experiment" is tainted.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:17:56 PM
Also, to clarify something:

I haven't stated my position regarding to what extent the authorities should restrict private ownership of weapons.

Note how I have phrased that. I reject the simple and rather silly pretences that there are only two positions and that the only weapons that exist are guns.

I haven't done so partly because I haven't decided what my position is and partly because I think that it's not as simple as the same restrictions being the best in all times and places.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:15:49 PM
@Angilion: "Your argument is that that is liberty"

No it isn't. My argument is that this maintains I higher amount of liberty that stricter gun laws, or complete removal/ban.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:15:01 PM
@Angilion: "Why is that liberty?"

I think this issue lies in how be both evaluate liberty. You seem to think of it as a black and white thing. Either it is, or it isn't.

I, however, perceive it to be a pool. We can both add to it or remove from it. It's not that some things are liberties and some aren't - it is that some things more drastically decrease our liberty than others.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:13:13 PM
@Angilion: "So if a state government drew the line at any position, would you still see it as being liberty?"

I think you will find this interesting - but yes. If the state says that you may not buy a nuclear weapon, then yes, your liberty has been limited. Before that point, you were free to buy a nuclear weapon, now you are not. Therefore, you liberty has been diminished.

The point being made is that the states have the Constitutional right to limit our individual liberties as they see fit. The federal government doesn't.

Please read my post to patchgrabber about "50 little experiments in democracy" (I wrote it after your last comment). With a republic, we would eventually see the best answers.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:11:30 PM
No I wasn't.


Yes, you were (and are).

You're advocating a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership. Your argument is that that is liberty.

You're not advocating no restrictions on weapon ownership. You're not even advocating no restrictions on gun ownership. You're advocating a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership and you're calling that liberty.

Why is that liberty?

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:10:12 PM
@piperfawn: Still here old man =).

@patchgrabber: "This makes little sense"

Yes it does. This is how a republic works, and we are a republic. The idea behind a republic is quite fascinating actually. You see, with 50 little experiments in democracy, we will yield better ideas that one massive one. The idea here is that, if certain gun laws lower crime, then some states will create those laws. Crime will drop drastically, and other states will see this success (and follow suit). If the federal government imposes such rules, then there is no experiment at hand.

Angilion
Male, 40-49, Europe
 11513 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:08:29 PM
"It also appears oddly undefined. You accept some restrictions on gun ownership but not others - how do you differentiate between which restrictions are part of liberty and which will destroy it?"

It ends via the agent implementing the changes. The state government has the power to do so - the federal government does not.



Ah, I see. It's not about the restrictions, it's about which level of government decides what the restrictions are.

So if a state government drew the line at any position, would you still see it as being liberty?

Bear in mind that even if you for some reason ignore all weapons other than firearms, you're still left with a very wide range on the spectrum of restrictions, from total ban to no restrictions, e.g. heavy machine guns firing radioactive incendiary bullets legally being sold to children.

HumanAction
Male, 18-29, Midwest US
 2353 Posts
Tuesday, August 07, 2012 12:07:05 PM
@Angilion: "You're basing your argument pretty much solely on the *assumption* that a lesser degree of restriction on gun ownership is liberty"

No I wasn't. You will see that I have been under the impression this entire time that you were supporting gun removal.

Page: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 Next > 

You Must be Signed in to Add a Comment

If you've already got an I-Am-Bored.com account,
click here to sign in.

If you don't have an account yet,
Click Here to Create a Free Account
 

Back to Listing ^top


Bored | Suggest a Link | Advertise | Contact I Am Bored | About I Am Bored | Link to I Am Bored | Live Submission | Privacy | TOS | Ad Choices | Copyright Policy |
© 2014 Demand Media, Inc. All rights reserved.