Healthcare Plan Misinformation Video-induced Debate

Remove all ads!

T2,
I support the right to bear arms. It is perfectly reasonable to allow people to defend themselves. As I have said before, if I lived in a remote place with the police half an hour away, I'd sure like to have a shotgun around. But this is different.

I seriously question the wisdom of assuming that it extends to bringing your arms to a protest, because it adds nothing to the protest but escalation potential. This isn't about them not being 'child safe'.

To be clearer: What I see here is a collision of the rights of the gun bearers with the rights of other protesters and participants of the event. I don't see why and how the right to bear arms trumps everything else. The second amendment comes after the first. The constitution is no suicide pact. Only because a right is given that doesn't mean it must not be restricted when it collides with the rights of others and when the result of its exercise is counter productive (as in, say, intimidation of others through more or less explicit threats of violence) i.e. at someone else's expense. Which is what I see here.

I find the stance that holds: 'Geez, it's a right, so we can't do anything about it' disingenuous, or callous, if the possibility of violence is seen as something desirable. The argument 'in favour of liberty' is a nice straw man for people who hold the callous mentality on the subject. People who intimidate others through display of arms and threatening slogans aren't exactly liberty's best customers, because, again, their exercise 'feasts' on the liberties of others. That is neither reasonable nor desirable; in fact, it is a formula for liberty to defeat itself.

Chandos,
the great irony is that there is this segment among the people who cherish the right to bear arms as a constitutional freedom that has towards the state, in particular the federal government, an ambivalent attitude at best. They always live under the spectre of the breakdown of the rule of law - under constant assault by the tyrannical federal government, activist judges and criminals. It's a siege mentality. The state through its organs is the enforcer and protector of the rights under the US constitution, and yet they want to shrink it and shrink it and shrink it. The dysfunctionality resulting from downsizing may just produce the dreaded breakdown of the rule of law; they're merrily biting the hand that feeds them. Who in the absence of the state is to enforce their rights is an open question, but then again, they then still have their gun to rely on. Like in the old days ...

 

Ragusa, you appear to take an odd stance that rights have to be defended, and if someone can't give a good reason to employ a right in a given situation, then they shouldn't actually have that right in that situation.

You talk about the Right to Bear Arms colliding with other rights? What rights? There is no right to not see weapons, or to not be near them. Nor is this person having a gun impeding other people from speaking, writing, praying, or doing anything else protected under the First Amendment.

I don't know how it is in Germany, but fundamental rights are taken very seriously here in the US, and you need a very good reason to infringe them at all. It takes rulings from the Supreme Court to do things like stopping people from showing obscene material in the street*.

*i.e. most, if not all, obscenity laws either have been challenged to the supreme court or are backed by previous supreme court rulings.

 

I don't know...maybe. But I kind of doubt that. Since the post-war WWII days, I see a lot of that as mostly just smoke and mirrors.

I see it a little differently, in that they desire a breakdown in the Rule of Law. I think many of them see the Rule of Law as an extension of the power of the "tyrannical federal government."

 

Ragusa, there has been a concerted effort in the US to put individual rights above the best interest of the country. While I fully support individual rights I belief the use of those rights also come with responsibility and restraint. I believe we have taken certain freedoms and rights to absurd extremes and we will continue to do so for the forseeable future.

We have taken the opinion of a Supreme Court Justice, "The right to swing my fist ends at at where the other man's nose begins" and bent it slightly: "Your right to swing your fist ends at my nose." The difference is subtle, but takes the emphasis away from personal responsibility and places the emphasis on outcome.

To project that into the current argument: the current belief is demonstrating the right to bear arms is okay so long as no one gets hurt. I agree with you that this is too extreme, I believe that my right to bear arms ends when it adversely affects another person -- beyond that point bearing arms is either defense or irresponsible.

However, until we as a nation (or perhaps a world) decide the best interest of the populace is more important than individual rights we will continue to see these types of rallies. You cannot have it both ways -- one or the other must trump.

 

T2 - I think I agree with you on those points. It seems sometimes that few people confuse their "wants" with rights. The "Pursuit of Happiness" is a very broad premise, almost to the point of being meaningless without the kind of restraint and respect for others that you are speaking of.

 

NOG,
we take rights very serious in Germany as well. So serious in fact that the German legal model for constitutional rights and administrative law has become a model for those (Eastern) European countries that recently have experienced tyranny, and was adopted there in favour of the Anglo-Saxon system. Consider that for a second. In their eyes the American system was second best, and they came to that view even though Germany blitzed most of them during WW-II and committed atrocities on their people.

Granted, we don't have a right to bear arms here. Protest here is allowed as long as it is peaceful and unarmed (that means, it can get unruly and vocal, but where arms start to get involved we're moving into criminal terrain).

Aside from the steps taken to prevent any repetition of administrative injustice as under the Nazis, our laws draw lessons from the Weimar period that saw armed clashes on the street very short of civil war, and political figures of the left in particular shot and fished out of Berlin's waterways. One conclusion from that time was that arms and demonstration are not a healthy mix, and that has nothing to do with gun ownership. Another one was that enemies of freedom are not allowed to demolish the constitutional order (that's why Germany [rarely] has banned parties) while making use of its freedoms.

Statement by the guy who was interviewed by Chris Mathews (at 1.52): Wow. Who would be silly enough to carry an unloaded firearm?

​

 

Loved that interview - I really like the way Chris Matthews conducts interviews - he doesn't let people go off topic on their own personal rants.

 

This almost gave me chills. I especially like that he is reading from the bill. These are the things that are driving the "tea partiers" crazy. How many of the bill's supporters haven't read it and don't know these type of things.

 

I'm not trying to say who's system is better, Ragusa. I was just trying to make sure you understood our system. Maybe it's the lack of a right to bear arms in Germany that's the difference, but if so, then you seem convinced that we should change our legal system to match yours, which is exactly waht a great many people in the US see as the worst possible outcome of the gun-control movement (not becoming like Germany, per se, but actually loosing our right to bear arms).


TGS:
Wow! Mr. Rogers really is in Congress! Lmao, sorry, but I just had to say that. In all reality, I don't think most people in Congress have actually read these bills. I definitely don't think Obama has. Either that, or he's blatantly decieving the American people. I think he's just trying to push any bill through for form's sake, though.

 

It's really a pretty short drive for that crowd.

I didn't watch your link, TGS, because opponents have been dishonest about what's in the bill, so I don't care what they "claim" is in it. I'm waiting for the actual bill to appear, which probably won't be until October, before I comment on "what's in it." It's hard to comment on a bill that does not exist yet.

Of course you do.

 

Well considering it was being done in the House and the speaker is a Congressmen I think I feel comfortable in accepting his "claim" of what is in it. Especially since he mentions page numbers and has it in front of it.

 

That cancer survival rate rant is somewhat misleading. US has generally a very good cancer survival rate and according to an article I read just a while ago, somewhat higher than in Europe in general. However there are big state by state deviation as well as major differences between individual European countries. France as an example has a very high cancer survival rate and in many individual cancers higher than US (the article did not actually compare the total cancer survivability with all types of cancer so I'm not sure how they would compare in that). Anyhow, I'm prone to believe that cancer survivabilty has less to do with healthcare and more to do with other issues in the industrialized west.

 

Yes, you mean just like how there are Obama "death panels" in the bill? Right!

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/08/21/betsy-mccaugheys-ideas-ca_n_264970.html

 

There's just one problem with this idea. If you wait untill the bill is official and final and singular, it's also passed and it's too late to do anything about it. If you're content to sit back and whine about everything the gov't did wrong while the gov't does everything badly, then that's fine. If you actually want to be involved in the process and make sure (or try to at least) that they do it right, you have to address the proposals as they come.

 

Ha Ha. These attacks against people who are not in favor of what the Dems and Obama are trying to force down our throats is getting very monotonous. While it is true that the term "Death Panels" was created to strike fear into the "sheep" who will blindly do whatever their "leaders" tell them to, the truth of the matter was there were provisions in the bill which were going to force doctors and patients to have discussions about hospice and when "it was time to give up the ghost".

The Democrat leadership was eventually forced because of the uproar to remove those sections from the bill because it was so easily "misunderstood" (their term, not mine)

Now I'm not opposed to hospice and I don't believe in living forever. However, this is a decision for people to make on their own, with their family, and with their advisors. I believe that doctors have a part in the discussion, but what the bill was asking was something that could very easily lead to abuse and therefore it was properly removed.

You can chuckle and make all the snide remarks you want, but in this particular case the correct decision was made. I guess the galling part is that it was Palin who made it happen.

 

Oh, good! I would like single-payer, universal coverage for all Americans, and for those who can't afford it, abortions included as a medical procedure if the mother's health is at risk. I'm not being sarcastic - this is what I would consider "done right."

I know you are not questioning my personal involvement in this process, but since you brought up how to be more involved, I do most of my work with MoveON. If you would like, I can forward you MoveOn's materials, which includes all the petitions we've signed, phone conferences we've sat in on, emials and phone calls we have made to numerous congress people. Of course, I have personally donated to MoveOn's and Obama's effort to reform health care. My wife and I are involved deeply in this process and we are both proud of our support for the reform effort.

That's your opinion and you are entitled to it. But Repulicans originally supported this idea and actually helped craft it, until someone got the cruel idea to use it as a political weapon. And I don't really need to "chuckle and make snide remarks," TGS. Because I have something you don't have in this debate: The facts. Have a nice day.

If you are really interested in the debate about the end-of-life provision:

http://www.miamiherald.com/news/breaking-news/story/1186904.html

 

Even though I think our system is better in many ways, I don't call on the US to copy ours (even though they'd be in many ways well advised to do so - for instance the no fly lists wouldn't fly in Germany at all for their massive procedural flaws and violations of traveller's material rights).

My point is actually quite narrow: That we made conclusions on arms and protests based on our historical experience, and that the finding that arms and protest don't go well with each other is eminently reasonable and very straightforward. Reasonableness is no bad guideline.

The problem here is about the collision of individual rights. We two have equal rights to do what we want to do. I want to do what I want to do, and you don't like it because it prevents you from doing what you want to do. If we see our rights in a maximalist way and I am stronger (or, say, armed) I win and you lose. Is that a desirable outcome? No, because it result in the rule of the stronger and is unfair and threatens us peacefully living side by side. While we clearly see the extent to which our individual rights go, we can't exercise them to the fullest. That are the inherent limits of our rights, and any exercise beyond that is abusive because it 'feasts on the rights of others'.

If the right to bear arms was unlimited citizens would be allowed to have tanks, missiles, RPGs or nukes, which they don't. They would be allowed to bring them to court or immediate vicinity of the president as well. So the right does have limits, and the problem is merely where to draw the lines while retaining the right as meaningful.

All I suggest is that, when the right to bear arms and the rights of others collide, some balance is warranted - and banning guns from demonstrations doesn't infringe on the right to bear arms all that much while allowing others to protest intimidated. It also removes escalation potential. Occasionally people get into brawls over health care town halls. You don't want to put guns into the mix.

 

Actually, my point was that this is the time to criticize. This is the time to look at the bills and try to get something done. Waiting until something's finalized is too late. I'm glad to see you apparently agree with me.

Oh, no. That's not a snide remark at all. I'm sure it's not.

From your historical experience, maybe. But this was a US protest, and should be viewed by US standards. And while we have had a few incidencts with rioters having guns, it's never caused serious, historically significant problems. We have, on the other hand, had serious and historically significant problems with rioters not having guns. Admittedly, not a whole lot, but they've happened.

The problem is that neither of us actually has the right to do what we want. We have the rights to do certain things if we want to, but no matter how much we want, we don't have the right to do certain other things. If I want to rob you, you have the right to defend yourself, but I don't have the right to rob you. Likewise, if I'm carrying a gun and you don't like it, I have the right to carry a gun (in the US at least), but you don't have the right to take it from me. So, back on topic here, who's rights (and which) were being infringed by this guy carrying a gun?

I agree. All rights have limits. The problem is, you apparently don't like the limits that are present in the US.

Again, what other person's right do I violate by carrying a gun?

 

As an armed counter demonstrator at a protest? That would be his right to speak unintimidated.