30 Bananas a Day!

i'm curious to see what people here have to say about it.

specifically, matters such as

should guns be banned?
should people be allowed to own and use guns?
are guns effective or necessary for self-defense?
do guns promote or reduce violence?

(i think to some extent it pertains to one's health and state of mind, so it may be an appropriate topic for discussion here, but if the moderators feel it has no relevance to this forum, the thread should be removed or at the very least closed.)

in friendship,
prad

edit 12-11-17: please also look at these specific posts which present puzzles of some form:

a variation of what would i do

guns as a deterrent for whom?

banning gun control on 30bad

edit 12-11-20: this has been an excellent discussion particularly thanks to the input by rawbert and jon! the former asked me how i'd answer the questions i ask in this op, so here goes.

edit 13-03-14: our thanks also to iskdude who made the effort to engage in a substantial discussion on the second amendment perspective starting here and continuing here. your sincere and dedicated participation is much appreciated!

should guns be banned?

no.

they are yet another interesting revelation of the crude methods certain segments of humans incorporate to continue their barbaric activities towards each other and other species. as such, they should be kept "lest we forget".


should people be allowed to own and use guns?

no.

guns stink up the place. can you imagine how badly they'd mess up classic kung fu movies like 36th chamber or shaolin rescuers or lady hermit! if anyone is allowed to own and use guns, then it should be done with extreme care and rigorous testing. the specific use should be clearly identified, approved and restricted. for instance, target practice is ok, possibly police work may be ok as well (sometimes), but hunting and just going around killing things is not. i think certain responsible people would use guns with appropriate responsibility, but everyone wouldn't and so, they need to be taken away from those who aren't sufficiently mature and/or competent. we really need to cut out this "right to own firearms" and put it into proper historical context instead of abusing the original intent.


are guns effective or necessary for self-defense?

possibly.

this is a good question prad! self-defense can be initiated in many ways. however, one of the things that guns do is to serve as equalizers. in other words, someone who is physically weaker does become on par with someone physically stronger if they both have guns. in that sense, until we have altered societal behaviors, i can see guns possibly serving in a "fairness" capacity. unfortunately, there is also a possibility societal behaviors will not be altered so long as guns are too freely available.


do guns promote or reduce violence?

both.

for some, having a weapon incites them to use it. for others, knowing the other person has the same weapon leads to a mexican standoff. irresponsible people will act irresponsibly while responsible ones will do otherwise. what is not likely sensible though is to provide the former with weapons and leave the latter without. injustice needs to be fought and those fighting it should be appropriately armed.

it may be that your species will need to go through a big 'gunfight' before it evolves to a more suitable level of behavior - it hasn't done too well over the past millenia even with the help of many noble 'prophets'. imho, it is unintelligent to make these 'prophets' lay down their lives along side so many other innocent bystanders, just so certain delinquent oppressors can have their jollies.

as the high lama tells conway in lost horizon:

"when the strong have devoured each other, then at last, the meek shall inherit the earth."

This discussion is now closed since the op's questions have been answered and thoroughly discussed (and pradtf has plenty of other things to do, presently). It is unlikely that the op will re-open it, though any pk certainly may.

Views: 3111

Replies are closed for this discussion.

Replies to This Discussion

actually you do because you have passed judgment on the two administrations without verifiable evidence. even a citizen's court needs to conduct itself with legitimacy. otherwise, justice becomes a mockery based on gossip, whims, bigotry and conspiracy hypotheses.

Ahh but I haven't it was you who said I accused them of 9/11, I just said that 9/11 was an inside job.  But who exactly is yet to be determined.  That's why you need a trial, to get subpoenas, warrants, searches to find out more evidence, question witnesses etc...  For all I know Obama is clueless to what's happening and believes the official story as well although I doubt it.  Same could be said of Bush.  You could say I suspect them obviously but not necessarily Indict them.  They are still criminals though, known liars, defying the constitution, murderers for their wars...  So it's not unreasonable to suspect them, but it is to indict them off hand.

Ahh but I haven't it was you who said I accused them of 9/11, I just said that 9/11 was an inside job ... For all I know Obama is clueless to what's happening and believes the official story as well although I doubt it.  Same could be said of Bush.


let's get the facts correct here, iskdude. i didn't say you accuse obama and bush - i wrote you accuse the obama/bush govs:

"yet without evidence much less a fair trial (on the basis of some verifiable evidence) and based only on speculation, you accuse the gw bush gov and the obama gov of mass murder."
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3064607

and here:

"by passing the judgments on bush and obama et al"
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3073418
("et al" being the latin term for "and the rest", in context meaning their govs - possibly you were not familiar with that term? or may be you didn't see it when reading what i wrote?)


furthermore, you did accuse their govs as shown by your statements here:

The Larry Silverstein comment broadcast on the PBS documentary "America Rebuilds" where he says pull-it and CNN footage of the cops telling people to get back their going to bring down wtc7 is proof beyond a reasonable doubt that it was an inside job.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3079521

There's no evidence for the scenario of the government's side that I've seen and only evidence against the government.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3072605

we have the probable accidental admission of guilt by Larry Silverstein and Donald Rumsfeld for 9/11.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3072605

in fact, you did even accuse obama directly and individually right here:


I'll tell you this, with 9/11 being an inside job (another thread topic) and the recent shootings being staged events (also another topic); and the fact that the government, Which would include Obama and some people in congress want our guns for said events.
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3063218


so you did say a bit more than 9/11 being just an inside job.



You could say I suspect them obviously but not necessarily Indict them.  They are still criminals though, known liars, defying the constitution, murderers for their wars...  So it's not unreasonable to suspect them, but it is to indict them off hand.

well i won't argue all this, but i think you should rephrase the second sentence to something like "They are still suspected criminals, murderers ..." etc until you  demonstrate it is so. however, since i'm inclined to agree with you to a large extent based on some of what i've seen being documented, i won't challenge your sentiment.

in friendship,
prad

let's get the facts correct here, iskdude. i didn't say you accuse obama and bush - i wrote you accuse the obama/bush govs:

Accusing the government doesn't necessarily imply anyone for anything in a trial except for a more thorough investigation to find out who specifically was responsible.  The Bush Administration and Congress signed the 9/11 commission report into being and acted on it's behalf so I don't see anything wrong with that.  Either way, I believe in a fair trial for individuals to defend themselves before punishment can be administered.   

in fact, you did even accuse obama directly and individually right here:


I'll tell you this, with 9/11 being an inside job (another thread topic) and the recent shootings being staged events (also another topic); and the fact that the government, Which would include Obama and some people in congress want our guns for said events.

I said they want our guns for said events: 9/11 and the shootings.  I didn't implore Obama did it in this statement. 


You could say I suspect them obviously but not necessarily Indict them.  They are still criminals though, known liars, defying the constitution, murderers for their wars...  So it's not unreasonable to suspect them, but it is to indict them off hand.

well i won't argue all this, but i think you should rephrase the second sentence to something like "They are still suspected criminals, murderers ..." etc until you  demonstrate it is so. however, since i'm inclined to agree with you to a large extent based on some of what i've seen being documented, i won't challenge your sentiment.

Well I'm glad we can agree on something to a large extent at least :) 

You asked me about the constitution and what I would change, I'd have to say that I'd define property taxes and get rid of the 16th amendment and that's it.  We are running on an illegal currency (article 1 section 10) by a private federal reserve which has no oversight , I'd get rid of the ATF, DEA, CIA, NSA, FBI, and the IRS.  The rest would have to be up to the citizens.  This would work for me for the time being but perhaps more could be added in the future like some kind of citizens oversight committee...

hello iskdude!

**
Either way, I believe in a fair trial for individuals to defend themselves before punishment can be administered.
**

fair enough. so it may be a good idea in that case not to throw around accusations too loosely. courts tend to try to put 'gags' on certain matters going public just for that reason.


**
I said they want our guns for said events: 9/11 and the shootings.  I didn't implore Obama did it in this statement.
**

you did write "Which would include Obama and some people in congress want our guns", so you did imply obama. however, based on your above statement and the principle of charity in argumentation, we can accept that you really meant the gov as a whole and not specific individuals. however, even the gov as a whole (ie the decision-makers) is entitled to a fair trial.

actually, i rather doubt obama or bush have as much control as people seem to think. much goes on behind the faces that the public sees.


**
Well I'm glad we can agree on something to a large extent at least :)
**

we agree on more than you give us credit for, iskdude. we only run into problems when you create arguments that don't make any sense ... such as the manifestation of those inalienable rights into gun ownership rights (in your other post where it will be dealt with).


**
You asked me about the constitution and what I would change, I'd have to say that I'd define property taxes and get rid of the 16th amendment and that's it.
**

well i don't like paying taxes not because there is something wrong with doing so, but because i don't like what they are used for. personally, i'd prefer if we could specify what our taxes should go towards. i think such systems do exist in some countries.


**
We are running on an illegal currency (article 1 section 10) by a private federal reserve which has no oversight
**

and they never have! such incompetence should be eliminated, imho.


**
I'd get rid of the ATF, DEA, CIA, NSA, FBI, and the IRS.
**

i like it!!
eliminating some of these may be hard on certain tv network efforts (eg x-files, alias), but i don't watch that stuff anyway so i'm just fine with it! :D


**
The rest would have to be up to the citizens.
**

this could be good provided you have competent citizens, so you have to be careful.


**
This would work for me for the time being but perhaps more could be added in the future like some kind of citizens oversight committee...
**

i think these are all excellent ideas!
however, please note that you are not "restoring the constitution" as you claimed previously. you are adjusting it to your own vision which why i asked the question about what constitution you were supposedly planning on restoring.

so as long as that point is evident, we can put this matter to rest.

i think you do have many good ideas and hope you (and others) can succeed in implementing some of them through whatever format of revolution may lie ahead.


in friendship,
prad

Well here we go again, I'd just like to say I have to apologize about some grammatical and/or language errors that come through my typing.  typing on this forum in this small space can get frustrating in some ways in a dialogue like this. 

in the amendments, "property" is mentioned in 2 amendments:

#5 "nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation."

#14 "nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law"


notice in each case, the "taking away" has to go through "due process of law". it is the law that is supreme - not your fictitious property rights. you don't have any property rights except under the law. so an individual has the right to own property (objects or otherwise) only by virtue of the law. there is no inherent right to property nor does owning property mean that it can't (or shouldn't) be taken away from you.

once again, you cannot simply make up your own constitution because you don't like or have not read or correctly interpreted what it says there and expect it to be accepted.


 Inherent:

"Permanently existing in something; inseparably attached or connected; naturally pertaining to; innate; inalienable; as, polarity is an inherent quality of the magnet; the inherent right of men to life, liberty, and protection."
http://www.brainyquote.com/words/in/inherent178723.html

property is not "inseparably attached or connected", so it is not inherent. guns are not "inseparably attached or connected", so there is no inherent right to own guns.

Yes I realize that the word property is not defined in the constitution (at least last I looked).  This is why we have the first amendment so we can speak about it.  So we can talk about whatever we really want,  Including my "fictitious property rights"  The language is  ambiguous so there are holes we can fill in it but notice it says property should not be taken without just compensation for public use.  The government by it's very nature is a public entity.  If the so called government wants to take it away some form of compensation ought to be given.  For example, Property taxes could be implemented in such a way as to build up to the value of or a reasonable percentage of the value of the estate in order for the government to claim it.  Giving the property owner some time to build up the credits to pay off the property taxes on land he owns... or not.  That would be a more just compensation IMO, but it doesn't work like that.  You don't pay you lose, either because your broke or you choose not to. 


I disagree with your notion that we are not connected to property.  Property is merely land, we need land.  We need land to live, for shelter, for food.  Even the homeless live on some land, and they survive off the scraps of others because there are so many others.  I know of some people who drifted for the fun of it, but hey that's their choice.  And actually if you want to get technical, we literally are land.  We are made of various minerals Ca, Magnesium, Iron; as well as various non-metals mostly carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen.  We came out of the land and we are to go back to the land once we die.  You can't live on a boat sustainably, you'd have to go back on land in order to get supplies and food.  So there you have it, we are inherent to the land/earth, which is nothing more than a piece of property to mankind. 

Here's another definition of inherent:
: involved in the constitution or essential character of something : belonging by nature or habit : intrinsic <risks inherent in the venture>
http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/inherent

The word inherent does not necessarily mean inseparably attached or connected  in a physical way, but can also be described for characteristics.  For example, It is an inherent property of mankind to create and build things.  This includes objects, whatever you build is yours to keep and use why else would you build it, especially if it's something useful.  If people make things to give away it's usually for some sort of benefit to themselves the maker, it could be a gift or for some sort of compensation in exchange for the creation which results in the act of trading or for taxes possibly, but even that has some sort of purported benefit, the benefit of government.  The law simply recognizes this natural habit and protects it in the context of society.

Here you say we don't own anything and imply that we are tenants of the u.s.:

you don't own it beyond what the law says because by living as a citizen, you agree to those laws. let's not forget something. you just arrived here a few decades or so ago. the usa has been here a lot longer and claimed the land well before your arrival. they didn't claim it for you, so you have no right to it. you do have the ability to buy property according to the law, but you can't go around thinking it's yours just because you paid for it, beyond what the law under which you bought it allows.

If we are tenants to the land of the u.s. then who are it's owners?  The people who founded the u.s. are long gone and passed away, so it's we the citizens.  Here's the beginning of the Declaration of the U.S.

"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. — That to secure these rights, Governments are instituted among Men, deriving their just powers from the consent of the governed, — That whenever any Form of Government becomes destructive of these ends, it is the Right of the People to alter or to abolish it, and to institute new Government, laying its foundation on such principles and organizing its powers in such form, as to them shall seem most likely to effect their Safety and Happiness."

The constitution recognized endowed rights by the creator to man...  Some people recognize this, and recognize the constitution as simply reinforcement of this belief.  The law is simply the law, the law could say anything depending on who's making it and allowing it to become a law.  The law isn't inherently moral, right or just or fair.  All it is (in theory) is the agreed upon norms on which society conducts itself. 

Assuming (for reasons of debate) that we are the progeny of a creator.  Then the Earth is for our own sustenance and to make a living as recognized by the declaration.  Therefore if we are tenant to somebody it's God.  We have the ability that we should change government to fit these ideals if it isn't as such, thus the reason behind many of the amendments in the bill of rights. 

if you don't like the laws, you can try to change the laws (we don't like stuff for animal rights for instance, so we try to change them), or go find another country to live in or hang out in the woods as you plan to do until they catch up with you.

Well I'd rather live in the woods than North Korea, preferably somewhere warm with fruit trees abound but there are none where I currently live, and I doubt there would be fruit trees even in warm places like Florida... I wouldn't want to stick around in such an insane and dangerous society where you can be vanished for the most trivial of things or even things you didn't even do which I foresee happening if things continue to go on such a path.   But yes, to change the laws is the goal as long as I'm here :) 

the second amendment does no such thing by allowing you to own guns and you admitted this yourself right here:
"I agree that guns are no guarantee of a prevention of a tyranny"

I said it wasn't a guarantee, that's not the same thing.

the fact that the law says a child cannot be president by law, doesn't alter the fact that the child can use still use a gun. therefore, your attempt to argue that since a child cannot be president, a child should not be allowed to use a gun is not logical (specifically a non sequitur). utilizing such an argument is a distraction (red-herring) from the issue at hand which was guns in relation to children using them.

I wasn't referring to the direct relation of the ability to carry out a presidential term or a full-time job to be in scale with the ability to utilize guns.  But merely on the mental aptitude that age has a factor in for a specific function, of which in the utilization of guns it plays a factor in particularly in a real life scenario in which guns should be used.

and hello again iskdude!

**
Well here we go again, I'd just like to say I have to apologize about some grammatical and/or language errors that come through my typing.  typing on this forum in this small space can get frustrating in some ways in a dialogue like this.
**

ya it's not all your fault. this ning format is not for serious discussion - it's a dating forum (loosely called a social network). i find many things quite an irritation too, but such is existence here.

i'm trying something different as far as quoting (since ning doesn't offer a mechanism for doing so). before i would italicize, but now as you can see, i'm wrapping your statement between '**'. simpler for me to do using the editor i'm using which is the eternally wonderful emacs.


**
Yes I realize that the word property is not defined in the constitution (at least last I looked).  This is why we have the first amendment so we can speak about it.
**

you can speak about anything you want via the first amendment. it has nothing to do with any rights to property though.


**
So we can talk about whatever we really want,  Including my "fictitious property rights"  The language is  ambiguous
**

the language is crystal clear. you can talk all you want about your fictitious property rights, but they will remain fictitious. you don't have property rights through the constitution - you only have a certain degree of 'protection' as per amendments #5 and #14.


**
there are holes we can fill in it but notice it says property should not be taken without just compensation for public use.
**

there aren't any holes you can make use of, iskdude. :D

it merely says that property must be dealt with through due process of the law - and that includes "just compensation" as determined by the law. it has nothing to do with your talking about it as you do in the remainder of the paragraph.

again, you are misinterpreting the constitution to suit this weird idea that property you bought (via the law), should not be taken away from you if you forfeit your part of the bargain. you won't get anywhere with that one beyond complaining about it. the law is quite clear on that - and quite fair too.


**
I disagree with your notion that we are not connected to property.  Property is merely land
**

property isn't land. property in this context is ownership of land. you don't need to own land in order to survive. some are vagrants. some people rent. in feudal times, people worked the land for their feudal lord, but didn't own it.


**
Even the homeless live on some land
**

but they don't own it because it is not their property.
since they survive, it is incorrect to claim that anyone needs property to survive.


**
And actually if you want to get technical, we literally are land.  We are made of various minerals Ca, Magnesium, Iron; as well as various non-metals mostly carbon, hydrogen and nitrogen.  We came out of the land and we are to go back to the land once we die.
**

we aren't getting technical here, we're bordering on metaphysical. :D
just because you have some elements that also appear in the earth, doesn't give you any legal rights to pieces of the earth.


**
So there you have it, we are inherent to the land/earth, which is nothing more than a piece of property to mankind.
**

well i'm sure chief seattle would have been proud of some of what you've written. however, none of this has anything to do with what's in the constitution.

now, here's what may be a better argument using your notions.

consider wild animals. they need the wilderness to survive (or have access to alternate opportunities - eg racoons and deer in urban areas). if you take these away from them, then they cannot survive which would be a violation of their 'constitutional' right of survival (which is arguably an inherent right).

similarly, humans need some equivalent (wilderness, urban opportunities etc) in order to survive. these things should not be forcefully taken away from them, because that would violate their right of survival in the same way.

none of this has a thing to do with owning property, but a civilized society would make allowances to ensure that animals and people have access to appropriate resources for survival.


**
The word inherent does not necessarily mean inseparably attached or connected  in a physical way, but can also be described for characteristics.
**

well actually by the definition you provided that's exactly what it means:
"involved in the constitution or essential character of something"
if it is in the items constitution or essential character, it is physically or conceptually attached.

"belonging by nature or habit"
much the same thing: it is put there by nature.

now the one effort you are making through "habit" is very dangerous as we'll see in a moment.


**
For example, It is an inherent property of mankind to create and build things.
**

it is not an inherent property of mankind at all - again we have the faulty induction fallacy. it may be an inherent property for some people to create and build things, but the vast majority of humanity doesn't build a thing and you'd have to put pretty loose parameters on "create" to bring that into the mix.


**
This includes objects, whatever you build is yours to keep
**

no even that's not correct. if you built yourself a car using stolen car parts, you wouldn't be allowed to keep it by law. so your statement "The law simply recognizes this natural habit and protects it in the context of society." doesn't apply despite it's good intentions.

here's the argument you are trying to run in essence.

the declaration of independence has this "right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness". you erroneously attributed it to the constitution here:

"But the Constitution says that there is a right to life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness."
http://www.30bananasaday.com/xn/detail/2684079:Comment:3082965

but we'll let that go, because i understand what you are trying to get at.

then you try above:
"The constitution recognized endowed rights by the creator to man..."

the constitution does no such thing. it's purpose is to provide a document from which the country can be run just as with a constitution of a society or other organized body.

even the flowery language of the preamble makes that clear:
"We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union, establish Justice, insure domestic Tranquility, provide for the common defence, promote the general Welfare, and secure the Blessings of Liberty to ourselves and our Posterity, do ordain and establish this Constitution for the United States of America."

none of this has a thing to do with the life, liberty and poh stuff from the doi.

yet, what you are doing is convoluting the two ideas, by suggesting that because you have a life (which you do) and you seem to think that you need land to maintain that life (which you don't), the constitution guarantees that you have land upon which to maintain your life.

or this is even worse (dangerous as mentioned before). you have this "pursuit of happiness" and so in comes the constitution to ensure it for you. say you want to pursue your happiness by killing (many do). don't expect the constitution to back you up.

the constitution doesn't give you anything more than a basis from which to make laws with which to run a country. in fact, it does only 2 things:


The founding fathers established the Constitution to do just two things:

1. Establish a federal government for the United States of America
2. Delegate to the federal government certain, limited (and enumerated) powers.
http://constitutionality.us/TheConstitution.html

note also very specifically that the constitution "does not give you rights" - no rights, iskdude and that includes no rights to having your guns. however, it is supposed to protect certain rights (at least those considered "inherent" and may be a bit more) by bringing laws into effect which must align with what's in it - which is also why you've had so many amendments.

what all this translates into briefly is that you may have an inherent right to defend yourself (eg life, liberty), but you don't have the right to own guns beyond what the constitution amendment says which is "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

(btw, since there is no well-regulated militia anymore in the same sense, it is dubious whether the second amendment actually applies, but that's a whole other story in development that we may want to examine later).


**
If we are tenants to the land of the u.s. then who are it's owners?
**

the usa owns the land (if you don't factor in foreign debt) because they laid claim to it and pushed the previous 'owners' off into reservations.

as i was saying, you don't own the land, you merely purchase a 'right' to use the land.

to answer your question more directly though, land is owned through the "economic concept of private property" because this is bought and sold by law. the use is also determined to some extent by law (eg you can't use your land for criminal activities if you want to keep it) as well as through zoning requirements sometimes.

the laws are made to protect property not people (as you would like):

"Civil laws are clearly designed to protect property rather than people – to bring a civil case, one must have suffered some loss that has private, economic value. In civil court, those without property, and no potential to acquire it, can have no claim because they have nothing to lose."
http://web.missouri.edu/~ikerdj/papers/WhoOwnsAmerica.htm

so as much as we'd like to sing to the tune of the beautiful "this land is your land":

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qUnvjYH9wK4


it ain't going to do much good against the law ... until we change some things.



**
We have the ability that we should change government to fit these ideals if it isn't as such, thus the reason behind many of the amendments in the bill of rights.
**

agreed and i have said the same thing above.

however, you shouldn't confuse the ideal (which may be an inherent/inalienable/natural right) with the mechanisms some people may use to achieve/protect it. defend yourself by all means, but don't think that gives you the right to own guns, or bombs or bio-weapons etc. i think you already know this though because you have stated earlier that guns only facilitate such defense.


**
But yes, to change the laws is the goal as long as I'm here :)
**

good! we do need more people like you staying around if we are going to effect changes. i know leaving an "insane and dangerous society" sometimes seems like the best option (and occasionally it may be), but there are many admirable things in the usa and many wonderful people there doing what they can to bring about not only a better country, but also a better planet.

they could use the help of committed and passionate people such as yourself - we all could.


in friendship,
prad

Case closed.

RSS

About

TheBananaGirl created this Ning Network.

30BaD Search

Latest Activity

© 2019   Created by TheBananaGirl.   Powered by

Badges  |  Report an Issue  |  Terms of Service