Generational Dynamics World View News

Discussion of Web Log and Analysis topics from the Generational Dynamics web site.
User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Bob Butler »

Burner Prime wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 1:37 pm
The Left does a good job with the argument "a well regulated militia..." part saying "we're just "REGULATING", not infringing. But their ideas are not in the spirit of 2A and let's be honest, acts as one step toward confiscation. And they never acknowledge that "militia" implies military weapons, not hunting rifles. Or they say militia means you have to be National Guard or something.
Just as an example of how I have tilted with some liberals...

It does make sense that an army made up of multiple state militias should follow the same training, and that it would be defined by Congress. Everybody has to work together. Obsolete, but sensible. Still, as it is currently an individual right to own and carry weapons, lots of people are entirely not part of the militia, not needing to be well regulated, some would not be regulated at all.

Ironically, the militia is defined as all males of military age, all females in the national guard, plus tweaks. The Vice President is not a member of the militia for example, nor are workers at shipyards who are presumed to be needed where they are. They could regulate the heck out of military age males while leaving the ladies and certain others for the most part unregulated. (Imagine the ruckus from that.) Note, the definition of militia which determines who is in it can be modified by ordinary law, without the amendment process. With the Democrats holding Congress and the presidency, in theory they could do lots of stuff.

If you used all the old laws, things could get crazy.

The current rules do make sense for a long time ago, but it would be just as well for the two sides to sit down and work out something more modern.
Last edited by Bob Butler on Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:00 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Navigator
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 10:56 am
Bob Butler wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 7:09 am


Many conservatives understand why the founding fathers wrote the Second, and believe those reasons still apply. Many liberals see a large number of people die, gun technology changing greatly, and want to do something about it.

If a conservative is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat. If a liberal is a vegetarian, he doesn’t eat meat.

If a conservative is down and out, he thinks about himself. If a liberal notes a class of people are down and out, he wonders what to do about it.

If a conservative is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church. If a liberal is a non-believer, he doesn’t go to church, makes sure those who want to can, and those that don’t want to aren’t forced.

If a conservative decides he needs health care, he works for it. If a liberal decides everyone needs health care, he works for it to become available.

I could go on, but that’s sufficient. The pattern is there. There is a demonization of the other that could be turned around. There is a selfishness on the part of the conservative, a concern for fairness on the liberal. There is a desire to solve culture wide problems on the liberal’s part that seems missing on the more self reliant conservative.

But mostly, there is a determination not to understand that goes both ways. Especially on the gun question, I have been as much a pain in the rear to the liberals as I am considered here. If one person is right, the other guy must be wrong?
Bob, I think what guest was trying to say was something like this:

Conservatives think demonstrating personal responsibility is the bulwark of a successful society, and that if everyone practiced it, many societal problems would simply go away.
Liberals think demonstrating personal responsibility is a nearly worthless endeavor, certainly not worth the effort for most people.
I wrote about the fundamental differences between Conservative and Liberal before, it applies to the discussion above:

The political conflict between the two sides comes from how they each believe Government should operate. The Liberal believes that Governments exist to help people, to ease their suffering and help them with their problems. The Conservative believes that Governments should get out of people’s way, and should limit itself to fairness in administering the laws needed to maintain order and security.

The classical views they have of each other is that the Conservative believes the Liberal wants to tax everyone to pay to take care of everybody else, while the Liberal believes that Conservatives are heartless greedy people who care about no-one but themselves.
(this gets at Bob's mistaken belief that conservatives are just selfish)

The ideas of “Justice” and “Mercy” seem to be in conflict. But they are both valid viewpoints. Fairness and Equanimity require Justice. Compassion and Kindness require Mercy. It is a good thing to want to help other people. Likewise, it is a good thing to strive for rewards based on your efforts.

The real problems come when one side wants to “override” or “cancel out” the other in the operation of Government. When self-centeredness and greed are taken to extremes, many are left in desperate circumstances they cannot escape on their own. When taking care of people is taken to extremes, you have to confiscate things from others to do so. Both extremes lead to very bad outcomes.

You can see the full posting I did on this here:
https://www.comingstorms.com/the-fundam ... ifference/

Frankly, even more on the result of this conflict is under the political topic on the coming storms site, including gun control.

Navigator
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Correction, I wrote about Gun Control under the "Culture" section rather than the "Politics" section.

Here is the first of two parts:
https://www.comingstorms.com/guns-america-part-one/

The second part is here:
https://www.comingstorms.com/guns-in-america-part-two/

Note that neither political extreme will be happy with what I wrote, but I think the conclusions are as good a compromise as we could probably come to.

spottybrowncow
Posts: 314
Joined: Fri Jul 24, 2020 11:06 am

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by spottybrowncow »

Navigator wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:45 pm
Correction, I wrote about Gun Control under the "Culture" section rather than the "Politics" section.

Here is the first of two parts:
https://www.comingstorms.com/guns-america-part-one/

The second part is here:
https://www.comingstorms.com/guns-in-america-part-two/

Note that neither political extreme will be happy with what I wrote, but I think the conclusions are as good a compromise as we could probably come to.
Navigator,

Let me put a hypothetical scenario to you. I agree that this scenario seems unlikely, but unfortunately not nearly as unlikely as it would have seemed even a year ago. It's not a trick, I really want to know what you think.

The democrats change the senate rules, enabling them to pass anything with 50+1 votes. They begin codifying into law preferences in hiring, speech, treatment by prosecutors and courts, etc., based primarily on race. These laws are challenged in courts, but are either not heard by the courts, or the rulings allow the new laws to take effect. Laws are subsequently passed seizing property from people that "have too much," officially justified because "they only got it because the system enabled them and they cheated others." They then pass laws stating that for specified infractions, which could be as simple as social media posts they don't like, several weeks or months attendance at a "re-education camp" is required. The courts refuse to stop it. Some people resist going to re-education camps for doing what was perfectly legal a year or so earlier, and they are given prison terms, which are publicized as just in the media. A few people resist violently, they are killed by police, and the state-controlled media portray them as terrorists who got what they deserved. Next the government passes laws banning all firearms, with anyone caught not complying getting a 10 year mandatory prison term.

Are the people who would then willingly turn in their guns noble patriots submitting to democratically passed laws? Or something else?

User avatar
Bob Butler
Posts: 1458
Joined: Wed Jun 10, 2020 9:48 am
Location: East of the moon, west of the sun
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Bob Butler »

Navigator wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 3:45 pm
Note that neither political extreme will be happy with what I wrote, but I think the conclusions are as good a compromise as we could probably come to.
If we were to get more specific, I would start by defining a civilian firearm as firing one shot per trigger pull, no shot being above a given power, no magazine above a certain size. Guarantee a right to own and carry civilian arms while leaving out the justification clause with its mention of the militia. Specifically forbid Congress the power to regulate arms, leaving it to the states. Adjust from there.

Agreed the culture of glorifying gun violence is part of the problem, but proposing a solution is hard.

Burner Prime

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Burner Prime »

Any concept of "let's find common ground" is another phony exercise that always favors the left. The left doesn't believe at all that there are valid points on both sides but they play a fun game to keep the credulous public believing the charade.

Left: We propose removing all weapons from civilians, putting whites on no-fly lists, and sending all gun owners to concentration camps.

Right: No way that's insane and way too far!

Left; Ok fine we'll compromise, just confiscate guns. If you don't like it we'll call you obstructionists and blast it through anyway 'cuz we got the votes.

Right: OK, OK, we'll go along..

Pelosi: We had BIPARTISAN support for a gun confiscation bill we're sending to the Senate...

Wash, rinse, repeat for the slow-walk to tyranny.

Navigator
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Spottybrowncow,

I will try to answer questions posed here one by one.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
The democrats change the senate rules, enabling them to pass anything with 50+1 votes.
I think this already happened, the rules changed in 2017, which was due to Republican decision to get Gorsuch on the Supreme Court.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
They begin codifying into law preferences in hiring, speech, treatment by prosecutors and courts, etc., based primarily on race.
This could well happen, but could backfire as the majority would find themselves not getting a job (or into university). This is what happened to the affirmative action programs of the '70s and 80s. But then people don't remember the past, so we could see these mistakes repeated.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
These laws are challenged in courts, but are either not heard by the courts, or the rulings allow the new laws to take effect.
It takes quite a while for laws to be challenged up to the Supreme Court level, so even if lower courts decide that the pro-(insert minority group here) mandates are OK, it will take a while for it to get overturned by the Supreme Court.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
Laws are subsequently passed seizing property from people that "have too much," officially justified because "they only got it because the system enabled them and they cheated others."
This is where "liberalism" turns into Force. This is a distinct possibility for the near term. This is euphemistically called "wealth re-distribution". It is confiscation, theft by the government. We have already seen a lot of rhetoric about reparation payments for slavery. I recently re-watched the Ken Burns documentary on Huey Long. (it is on Vimeo, Youtube has half of it, then a link to the Vimeo - I really recommend this). The ideas of "wealth re-distribution" are tantamount to communism. Why would anyone work hard or take the risks to create some new product if there was no reward in the end?
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
They then pass laws stating that for specified infractions, which could be as simple as social media posts they don't like, several weeks or months attendance at a "re-education camp" is required.
I could certainly envision laws against specified infractions, such as social media posts. But what is already going on is pretty effective. People lose their jobs or university admission or similar due to posts that could be years in the past. However, I do not see "re-education camps" as a possibility. Loss of jobs or benefits or giving someone a criminal record is actually much worse, and what we are already doing or close to doing.

Currently, use of the n-word is seen as completely unacceptable (I would agree with that), but the penalties currently being meted out are often way out of proportion. Who should have their life ruined as a result? There should be some serious consequence, but it shouldn't be the inability to provide for your family for the rest of your life.

What I think is about to happen is this. I will pick the most obvious topic, but others could move in this direction. Many religions declare that homosexuality is a sin. I believe that just saying this is about to be declared illegal. Many refuse to allow homosexuals to be married in their facilities. This could also be declared discriminatory/illegal. Both the preaching and 'denial of facility use' will make the religious leader guilty of discrimination or a "hate crime". I do foresee religious leaders being incarcerated for this.

Note that belonging to a specific religious denomination or congregation is a choice, and that you can chose not to belong if you don't agree with the doctrine or practices. But the government could decide that such freedom of belief is no longer acceptable.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
The courts refuse to stop it. Some people resist going to re-education camps for doing what was perfectly legal a year or so earlier, and they are given prison terms, which are publicized as just in the media.
I will take this as people are incarcerated for breaking the new laws. Well, that is our system, if you break the law, you can be put in prison. The media at this point (from either side) are perfectly capable of justifying almost anything at this point.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
A few people resist violently, they are killed by police, and the state-controlled media portray them as terrorists who got what they deserved.
If you resist the government violently, you are going to get yourself killed. I do NOT recommend anyone trying this.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
Next the government passes laws banning all firearms, with anyone caught not complying getting a 10 year mandatory prison term.
Attempting to ban firearms in the USA would be colossal mistake. There are far too many guns out there, it just wouldn't work. Just looking like they might be going down this path is how the Democrats lost all kinds of political power and helped enable Trump in the first place.

Much more likely are things like special licenses and taxes to keep the price of guns and ammunition so high as to dissuade people from buying them. This of course will not prevent people who want to do really bad things from getting the guns and ammo they need to perpetrate atrocities.
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
Are the people who would then willingly turn in their guns noble patriots submitting to democratically passed laws? Or something else?
Since I don't think gun confiscation is going to happen, this would be attempting to reach a conclusion based on spurious conjecture. However, we do believe in being law abiding citizens. This is the whole "rule of law" thing on which the country is based. If we disagree with laws, we need to work to change them (or prevent them from being passed in the first place).
Last edited by Navigator on Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:33 pm, edited 1 time in total.

Navigator
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

Bob Butler wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 6:12 pm
If we were to get more specific, I would start by defining a civilian firearm as firing one shot per trigger pull, no shot being above a given power, no magazine above a certain size. Guarantee a right to own and carry civilian arms while leaving out the justification clause with its mention of the militia. Specifically forbid Congress the power to regulate arms, leaving it to the states. Adjust from there.
Well, this means that any semi-automatic would be fine, which is what the rules are now. As for no shots above a "given power", that is pretty vague. Given bullet technology, just about anything can be made lethal, regardless of the caliber.

Also, states are the ones currently regulating firearms, so no additional changes there either.

Magazine size doesn't do much to stop shooting, as the real limit in a mass shooting event is how much ammo can you actually carry with you. Plus, bad guys would have the larger magazines anyway (how would you confiscate magazines?).

John
Posts: 11475
Joined: Sat Sep 20, 2008 12:10 pm
Location: Cambridge, MA USA
Contact:

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by John »

** 24-Jan-2021 World View: Filibuster rule
spottybrowncow wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 4:42 pm
> The democrats change the senate rules, enabling them to pass
> anything with 50+1 votes.
Navigator wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:23 pm
> I think this already happened, the rules changed in 2017, which
> was due to Republican decision to get Gorsuch on the Supreme
> Court.
-- McConnell went 'nuclear' to confirm Gorsuch. But Democrats changed
Senate filibuster rules first
https://www.nbcnews.com/politics/donald ... es-n887271
(NBC News, 28-Jun-2018)

The Democrats changed the filibuster rule in 2013 for lower court judges,
and lived to regret setting the precedent. They may have learned their
lesson.

Navigator
Posts: 899
Joined: Wed Feb 06, 2019 2:15 pm

Re: Generational Dynamics World View News

Post by Navigator »

John wrote:
Sun Jan 24, 2021 8:33 pm
The Democrats changed the filibuster rule in 2013 for lower court judges,
and lived to regret setting the precedent. They may have learned their
lesson.
Thanks for the additional background John.

We do, as you have mentioned before, have a great system of checks and balances. Messing with this system has always brought trouble.

In the past I mentioned, for example, what a mess the 17th Amendment made of the Senate, turning the Senate into a popularity based body, rather than an appointed body, which was the original intent.

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests