Militia question 1

[shanek]

Yes, but what of Europe today?

How is that relevant to his question?

 

[CFLarsen]

(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.

We cannot disregard the intent: Shanek considers bringing a gun to TAM with the expressed intent of intimidating me.

 

[CFLarsen]

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

It shows that you are deliberately trying to intimidate me. You are most definitely not helping yourself here.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Why would you need a gun at a skeptics' meeting at all?

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

Brandishing:

to exhibit in an ostentatious or aggressive manner.

Webster

How are you going to piss me off if you are not going to exhibit the gun?

All of the public functions I mentioned above were peaceful.

Bringing a gun to a skeptics' meeting solely with the purpose of intimidation is hardly "peaceful".

 

[CFLarsen]

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?

That's part of the explanation. There are many other factors, e.g. the right to strike, something that was fought for.

It's an ongoing process, based on the realization that what worked then does not necessarily work today.

 

[CFLarsen]

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.

Dancing around the issue. I would still like to know what "Creator" meant to the Founding Fathers, if not "God".

 

[Cynical]

Claus Flodin, you don't believe in God anyway, so what's the difference? "Creator" probably means "force". Now let's drop it.

Also, Claus Flodin, Shanek cannot intimidate you unless you LET yourself be intimidated. Besides, you never leave your house, do you? Aren't you a recluse, living in fear of people who carry guns?
Solution: don't leave the house, and get a neighbor to pick up your groceries. Shanek might be lurking in the bushes.

 

[Ed]

That's part of the explanation. There are many other factors, e.g. the right to strike, something that was fought for.

It's an ongoing process, based on the realization that what worked then does not necessarily work today.

I see where you are going but it is a non-starter. We too can change things as conditions warrent. The issues that I am interested in the the "granting" of rights? Are rights in Europe enumerated?

How is that relevant to his question?

Come on, it's obvious. You are not now, at this late date, going to tell me that you have a concern about keeping a thread on topic are you? "I am shocked, shocked".

 

[CFLarsen]

I see where you are going but it is a non-starter. We too can change things as conditions warrent. The issues that I am interested in the the "granting" of rights? Are rights in Europe enumerated?

What does that mean?

 

[Luke T.]

Why would you need a gun at a skeptics' meeting at all?

A) Bigfig might show up

B) The guy with the gun never has to buy the beer.

C) To perform an impromptu Penn and Teller magic trick.

D) Some chicks really dig guns.

 

[Luke T.]

We cannot disregard the intent: Shanek considers bringing a gun to TAM with the expressed intent of intimidating me.

No, he said he would do it to piss you off. It's not like he said he had something to tell you that would scare the crap out of you, and that he was going to follow you everywhere you went.

 

[shanek]

It shows that you are deliberately trying to intimidate me. You are most definitely not helping yourself here.

No, Claus, YOU would be intimidating YOURSELF. I wouldn't be doing anything except exercising a right that is exercised by millions of Americans every day, completely peacefully. Once again, this is yet another example of you wanting to force your way on others (in this case, in the form of an unconstitutional body search) because you don't want to take responsibility for your own beliefs and fears.

 

[shanek]

Why would you need a gun at a skeptics' meeting at all?

Claus, the thing about having rights is, you don't have to explain your motivation for taking advantage of them to anybody. Again, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. It's the Stardust's business. You could argue it's the JREF's business, too. BUT NOT YOURS. Get over yourself and your bloated ego.

How are you going to piss me off if you are not going to exhibit the gun?

Just by wearing it, as YOU said you would demand a search of me for fear of me doing.

Bringing a gun to a skeptics' meeting solely with the purpose of intimidation is hardly "peaceful".

Claus, you have LOST. You have NO SUPPORT here among the others. My only real consolation here is that more people are seeing you for what you really are.

 

[shanek]

Dancing around the issue. I would still like to know what "Creator" meant to the Founding Fathers, if not "God".

It meant "God" to some of them (John Adams, Roger Sherman, John Witherspoon) and "Nature" to others (Thomas Paine, Thomas Jefferson, Benjamin Franklin). They were each individual people with their own individual perspectives. This is just yet another example of the groupthink that leads you away from the skepticism you claim to embrace.

 

[crimresearch]

quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Originally posted by CFLarsen
Why would you need a gun at a skeptics' meeting at all?
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Is that what passes for skeptical thinking these days?
In order to exercise one's rights, one should be required to prove a 'need' for them?

Or is that just for *other* people's rights?

 

[CFLarsen]

No, he said he would do it to piss you off. It's not like he said he had something to tell you that would scare the crap out of you, and that he was going to follow you everywhere you went.

Pissing me off with a gun is intimidating me. The intent is clear.

It will be impossible for us not to meet at TAM3.

 

[shanek]

Pissing me off with a gun is intimidating me. The intent is clear.

It will be impossible for us not to meet at TAM3.

And if we shake hands, smile, and say "hello," how would the mere presence of a gun on my hip turn this everyday exchange into "intimidation" so much that you have such a great fear (before I even made the statement you are making such a big deal about) that would require you to bodily search me?

 

[Jocko]

We cannot disregard the intent: Shanek considers bringing a gun to TAM with the expressed intent of intimidating me.

Are you intimidated by everything that pisses you off? I'll bet you are. Show me a quote of Shane's that indicates an expressed intent to intimidate you - not your inferred reading.

 

[CFLarsen]

Claus, the thing about having rights is, you don't have to explain your motivation for taking advantage of them to anybody. Again, it's NONE OF YOUR BUSINESS. It's the Stardust's business. You could argue it's the JREF's business, too. BUT NOT YOURS. Get over yourself and your bloated ego.

This is not a case of you exercising your right to carry a weapon. This is a case of you going out to buy a gun, and bring it to TAM, solely to intimidate me.

Dressing it up as a rights-issue is only a smoke-screen.

Just by wearing it, as YOU said you would demand a search of me for fear of me doing.

Of course - you have exhibited such erratic behavior in the past here that it would be foolish of me not to insist that you were unarmed. You clearly have personal issues with me, you scream at me, you call me names - and now you threaten to bring a gun to TAM?

I would most certainly not knowingly walk into a potentially very dangerous situation. I've been threatened before, shanek. I'm not stupid.

Claus, you have LOST. You have NO SUPPORT here among the others. My only real consolation here is that more people are seeing you for what you really are.

Appeal to popularity.

What did the moderators say to your report?

 

[Jocko]

Why would you need a gun at a skeptics' meeting at all?

Rights don't need to be justified to you or anyone else. He can choose to carry BECAUSE HE CAN CHOOSE TO CARRY. If you don't get it by now, just give up, Claus, because you're getting to the point where the only person you're convincing is yourself.

How are you going to piss me off if you are not going to exhibit the gun?

Obviously it pisses you off that he even owns one. He's pissing you off from 8,000 miles away... how good IS your eyesight?

BTW, I'm enjoying your pissiness. Keep up the good work.

Bringing a gun to a skeptics' meeting solely with the purpose of intimidation is hardly "peaceful".

No, bringing a gun to a skeptics' meeting in DENMARK is hardly peaceful. Where is Las Vegas, Claus? Is it under Danish sovereignty?



Edited to add: Claus, you Eurofreaks are free to live as you see fit. Ban guns, whatever. No one is saying you are wrong in your beliefs, only that your beliefs are valid as far as your borders. Has anyone here pushed for a Danish concealed-carry law? Is anyone calling your country stupid for having a different perspective? Not that I can see. The only problem I have with Denmark is that you live there.

I would think that after a century of a policy of appeasement you Europussies would have learned to live and let live. I guess that only appeals to nazis, communists and terrorist groups. Ah well, there's always hope for tomorrow.