Militia question 1

[CFLarsen]

The arrogance.

What do you mean? It is a fact that the Founding Fathers had no idea that atoms existed. They had no idea that galaxies existed. Quantum Mechanics, nope.

Please explain why this is arrogance.

Also, please explain what the Founding Fathers meant by "Creator".

 

[CFLarsen]

I think, in a forward thinking stroke of collaborative genius, they were trying to find a term that could encompace the idea of "natural law" and word it in a way that all citizens and would-be citizens would understand.

What do you base this on?

It's ironic that now Claus of all people, intolerant of the idea that someone could be spiritual, is prosecuting those very words.

It would help your case a great deal, if you would not invent opinions that I do not have.

Give us your wretched before giving us your Clauses.

Very droll. Now, please address the points.

 

[Jocko]

Claus, how many times does the word "God" appear in the US Constitution? Zero.

How many times does it appear in the Declaration of Independence? Once, and only obliquely by any religious standard:

When in the Course of human events, it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another, and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

This is immediately followed by the part that perplexes you so:

We hold these truths to be self-evident, that all men are created equal, that they are endowed by their Creator with certain unalienable Rights, that among these are Life, Liberty and the pursuit of Happiness.

So there are two mentions of nature, including natural law, to one single mention of God (also in the context of nature). It seems reasonable to assume they refer to the "Creator" in a phenomenally broad - even secular, for its day - term. I know you disagree, and that is why I also assert that you're a pissy little b*tch.

Now, you can keep on trying to intimate that the Consitution/D.O.I. are invalid for being based on religious principles (with one whole God mention), and that liberty cannot be conceived without a functional knowledge of quantum theory, and that you are ipso facto superior on the subject because you know what atoms are.... but you're sounding stupider and stupider doing it.

 

[Luke T.]

Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" which negates the whole E = MC² thing, I guess.

 

[varwoche]

how many times does the word "God" appear in the US Constitution? Zero.

How many times does it appear in the Declaration of Independence? Once, and only obliquely by any religious standard

I'm with you Jocko -- religion does not lie at the foundation of the US. Now, would you do us all a favor and clue in the red states, and Bush too while you're at it?

 

[Sushi]

You're a pathetic little crybaby, Claus.

No one threatened you.
A firearm is no more a deterrent to discourse than your steak knife.
And most important of all, this is NOT A PROBLEM FOR ALL SKEPTICS WORLDWIDE, no matter how you try to cast yourself as the martyr for all things civilized.

I think what you bring to TAM3 is more damaging to the skeptical disciplines than any weapon Shane could carry. You bring your lies, deceit, intellectual dishonesty and your hubris.

Those things are what impede rational discourse, you blame-shifting little twat. I gave up on you back around page three and am no longer interested in what you offer, pleasantly or otherwise, so let me repeat:

You are a pussy. A crybaby. A liar. A twat. Your attempts to rally the "right thinking people" show what a pathetic Lenin you make.

You were a bit soft on him... (not sarcasm)

 

[Luke T.]

Brandishing is generally illegal.

It's a funny thing. When I lived in Virginia, you were required to carry your weapon concealed. Exposing it, even accidentally, was considered "brandishing" and was illegal. You could lose your license to carry.

In other states, you must carry your weapon exposed.

God Bless America!

 

[Sushi]

There is also the issue of how this will reflect on JREF and skepticism in general.

Are we gathering to discuss skeptical matters in a civilized way, or are we gathering to intimidate each other with guns? Do we settle things by discussing evidence, or by brandishing deadly weapons?

The Amazing Meeting is not about shanek or his right to carry a deadly weapon to intimidate other people. The Amazing Meeting is not about American rights, or the American Constitution, or turning the show into a political platform, or an exhibit for the NRA.

The Amazing Meeting is about skeptics from all over the world, who want to connect with other skeptics, and listen to interesting lectures made by brilliant people. Skeptics, who want to learn about how to counter the many false claims and false beliefs.

Peacefully.

It is not merely my business to know if shanek is going to turn up at TAM with a gun. It is the business of the whole skeptical community.

You're nuts.

 

[Sushi]

It's a funny thing. When I lived in Virginia, you were required to carry your weapon concealed. Exposing it, even accidentally, was considered "brandishing" and was illegal. You could lose your license to carry.

In other states, you must carry your weapon exposed.

God Bless America!

Are you supposed to keep a towel over your gun when firing or something if the need arises?

Albert Einstein said, "Science without religion is lame, religion without science is blind" which negates the whole E = MC2 thing, I guess.

Einstein relied too much on his gut feeling and resulted in him being wrong about quantum mechanics.

Einstein was no philosopher, either, and thought that morality/ethics can be divined in a manner similar to science. The only credible position I can see on morality is ethical-subjectivism.

 

[Jocko]

I'm with you Jocko -- religion does not lie at the foundation of the US. Now, would you do us all a favor and clue in the red states, and Bush too while you're at it?

I didn't say that, I was merely illustrating that the documents in question are worded in such a way as makes Claus' snotty arguments as moot as he is.

If you want to discuss how such things are interpreted today, and how religion alters the social dynamic of 21st century America, I'm sure you have some excellent points. But I'm trying to keep poor ol' Claus on topic (before he moves the goalposts again).

Edited to add: I'm a conservative, but I don't think Falwell & Co. channel the founding fathers any more than they channel Jesus. But by that same token, neither can Claus. This is like the top newspeak phrase of the day: be a woo-woo for skepticism!

 

[Ed]

To try, with no real hope for success, to get a bit on topic, I think that where we are is that-

1) Rights in the US are inherent, i.e. not granted by government.

2) Ownership of arms is one of these

3) Disussion of a militia with regard to gun ownership is an irrelevance

Are we pretty much all on the same page now?

I am still curious, Claus, as to where your rights come from. Are they granted by your government? That is to say, if they are not written down, you don't have them? I suspect that is where you went wrong on the gun control issue in the US.

 

[crimresearch]

It's a funny thing. When I lived in Virginia, you were required to carry your weapon concealed. Exposing it, even accidentally, was considered "brandishing" and was illegal. You could lose your license to carry.

In other states, you must carry your weapon exposed.

God Bless America!

That doesn't match the Virginia statutes on the matter...I'm guessing that whoever told you that was confused.

With or without a permit, in order to be convicted of 'brandishing', there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did:
"in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured."
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-282+402122

And as far as the regulation of carry permits...I didn't see anything that calls for losing one's permit if the weapon is visible or exposed.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-308+402122

 

[Luke T.]

That doesn't match the Virginia statutes on the matter...I'm guessing that whoever told you that was confused.

With or without a permit, in order to be convicted of 'brandishing', there has to be proof beyond a reasonable doubt that the accused did:
"in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another or hold a firearm or any air or gas operated weapon in a public place in such a manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another of being shot or injured."
http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-282+402122

And as far as the regulation of carry permits...I didn't see anything that calls for losing one's permit if the weapon is visible or exposed.

http://leg1.state.va.us/cgi-bin/legp504.exe?000+coh+18.2-308+402122

The way it was explained to me in the concealed weapons carry class I took was that the term "brandishing" was open to interpretation and when it came to how a cop would handle it, the 50/50 rule applied. That means half of cops would cite you for accidentally exposing your weapon in public, and half wouldn't.

(edited to add an example given: Wearing a weapon in your belt under your shirt at the beach and the wind blows your shirt up and exposes your gun to little children and a visiting Dane in the area, scaring the bejeesus out of them.)

Reading your own links, the term "brandishing" is used distinctly separate from "pointing" and "holding". So it comes down to "in such manner as to reasonably induce fear in the mind of another" which reminds me of sexual harrassment cases. Some sexual harrassment takes place in the mind. What offends one person may not offend another. Thus, the 50/50 rule.

As for penalities, your second link deals only with penalies for people not licensed to carry a concealed weapon.

 

[crimresearch]

Right, I couldn't find anything that actually called for having one's license taken away, just denied, leading me to believe that it would take a more formal judicial procedure to lose it.

And I know all too well the propensity of cops to rely on 'word of mouth' information in such matters...I recall in the mid 90s that there were attempts to charge people who were merely seen with a weapon with brandishing, but the last I checked just being seen wasn't enough.

Prior to that, IIRC there was a requirement that 2 or more people complain directly to the cops that they felt intimidated, before any action could be taken (I'm talking about the waistband creep, not quick draw practice in the mirror display at Walmart).

 

[Jocko]

To try, with no real hope for success, to get a bit on topic, I think that where we are is that-

1) Rights in the US are inherent, i.e. not granted by government.

2) Ownership of arms is one of these

3) Disussion of a militia with regard to gun ownership is an irrelevance

Are we pretty much all on the same page now?

That much is clear to everyone but Claus. I don't just mean everyone in this forum, I mean on this PLANET.

I am still curious, Claus, as to where your rights come from. Are they granted by your government? That is to say, if they are not written down, you don't have them? I suspect that is where you went wrong on the gun control issue in the US.

No, he went wrong when he presumed to adopt the kindergarten teacher's role and wagged his superior little finger at Americans, tsk-tsking that they think about what they've done wrong.

He understands perfectly. And he hates it. He's itching to change one American mind about the value of their freedoms - that's what sore losers do.

Better luck next time, Claus.

 

[shanek]

Crime, the point isn't whether or not someone at TAM3 is armed with a gun, but rather, that two people here on the forums have been holding a heated debate for some time, and that as a result of the heat one of them said he'd bring a gun to TAM3 to p!ss off the other, whatever he meant by that.

Look at the posts directly leading up to that. The post of Claus's that inspired the comment was:

You don't have any guns? Prove it. Prove that you will not bring a gun to TAM3. Will you submit to a body search, at any given moment?

Maybe the cultural differences between countries are responsible for this whole mess.

No, a very unstable European who derails threads instead of responding to the points presented to him is responsible for this.

 

[shanek]

Are we gathering to discuss skeptical matters in a civilized way, or are we gathering to intimidate each other with guns?

See, THIS is Claus's mentality. I have attended many, many public functions where people in attendance were wearing firearms. And that's just the ones who were carrying openly; I of course have no idea about how many places I've been where people have been carrying concealed firearms.

Fact #1: People carry firearms. Fact #2: Fact #1 is a good thing.

Do we settle things by discussing evidence, or by brandishing deadly weapons?

Claus, you have once again accused me of a crime. Brandishing a weapon is illegal. Cease and desist.

Peacefully.

All of the public functions I mentioned above were peaceful.

 

[Ed]

Oddly, I watch O'Rielly briefly this evening and he had Newt as a guest. Newt (speaking about another topic) pointed out that an essential difference between the US and Europe is that we get our rights by what he termed "Covenent" that is to say natural rights or rights from on high or from God, point being that they exist and are not subject to a "granting". Europe has what he calls "Contract" rights which sound a bit like a quid pro quo between the governed and the government.

Shanek, have any thoughts on this? It explains a lot. Is this a vestage of Feudalism wherein rights and obligations were contractually driven but where the individual had no rights except those that were granted by a structure that provided some benefits for the relinquished power?

 

[shanek]

Oddly, I watch O'Rielly briefly this evening and he had Newt as a guest. Newt (speaking about another topic) pointed out that an essential difference between the US and Europe is that we get our rights by what he termed "Covenent" that is to say natural rights or rights from on high or from God, point being that they exist and are not subject to a "granting". Europe has what he calls "Contract" rights which sound a bit like a quid pro quo between the governed and the government.

Shanek, have any thoughts on this? It explains a lot. Is this a vestage of Feudalism wherein rights and obligations were contractually driven but where the individual had no rights except those that were granted by a structure that provided some benefits for the relinquished power?

Well, you have to remember that at the time of the revolution we were operating under the "divine right of kings." The King got his power from God Almighty and doled it out as he saw fit. King John granted some of those rights to others with Magna Carta, for example. But it was still very much in the structure of the British government that the King got his rights from God, and so all of our rights came from him.

The Declaration of Independence eliminated the middleman. It was a bold move, suggesting we got our rights from God or from nature and not from any human authority. The language of the Constitution is written under this idea: that all of our rights already exist and the Constitution is just stopping the government from infringing on them. So it doesn't say, "freedom of speech is hereby granted," it says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't enable the people; it restricts the government.

 

[Ed]

Well, you have to remember that at the time of the revolution we were operating under the "divine right of kings." The King got his power from God Almighty and doled it out as he saw fit. King John granted some of those rights to others with Magna Carta, for example. But it was still very much in the structure of the British government that the King got his rights from God, and so all of our rights came from him.

The Declaration of Independence eliminated the middleman. It was a bold move, suggesting we got our rights from God or from nature and not from any human authority. The language of the Constitution is written under this idea: that all of our rights already exist and the Constitution is just stopping the government from infringing on them. So it doesn't say, "freedom of speech is hereby granted," it says, "Congress shall make no law...abridging the freedom of speech." It doesn't enable the people; it restricts the government.

Yes, but what of Europe today?