Castle Doctrine Under Fire - Score One For Freedom-Haters

utbagpiper · Jan 8, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
And so your adding the definition of lawlessness to it was because of?

Look, either give me a couple of examples of my supposed "logical leaps" (you know, the "citations" this site is supposed to be so famous for), or else drop the discussion.

You said there were many and they were obvious. So list 3 or 4 of them or else admit that you can't.

Charles

sudden valley gunner · Jan 9, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Look, either give me a couple of examples of my supposed "logical leaps" (you know, the "citations" this site is supposed to be so famous for), or else drop the discussion.

You said there were many and they were obvious. So list 3 or 4 of them or else admit that you can't.

Charles

I listed at least one. why don't you drop the discussion? I am under no obligation to cater to your demands.

Grapeshot · Jan 9, 2015

Gentlemen! This is a road trod too often here lately.

Having the last word only furthers the personal contest - far better to ignore and walk away.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 9, 2015

Grapeshot said:
Gentlemen! This is a road trod too often here lately.

Having the last word only furthers the personal contest - far better to ignore and walk away.

Are you trying to have the last word???????

J/k

OC for ME · Jan 9, 2015

No, he is not.

WalkingWolf · Jan 9, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Are you trying to have the last word??????? J/k

No need to kid, he is and it is his job. I have been trying to behave myself but it is hard when it gets made personal almost every single time. Not blaming anyone, certainly not blaming you, just saying.

I am not an anarchist, you and I have had our own go around over this, but I respect you as one, and know you are not any of the generalized claims made. You are not the only self proclaimed anarchist on this board, and to use broad brushes towards those members needs to be moderated. This I disagree with Grape on, he remains silent on the broad brushing of other members, and that usually starts these personality contests.

utbagpiper · Jan 9, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
I listed at least one. why don't you drop the discussion? I am under no obligation to cater to your demands.

You are obliged under the forum rules to provide "citations" to your claims. You claimed "lots of logical leaps" and have not bothered to even fully explain a single "logical leap."

I consider this discussion closed.

Charles

WalkingWolf · Jan 9, 2015

Grapeshot said:
Gentlemen! This is a road trod too often here lately.

Having the last word only furthers the personal contest - far better to ignore and walk away.

Wise words, please stop ignoring them.

Grapeshot · Jan 9, 2015

WalkingWolf;2119719-sipped-- ignoring them.[/QUOTE said:
.

utbagpiper · Jan 9, 2015

Rules need to be applied evenly and if broad brushes against anarchists were to result in moderation, I think Grape would have to shut down the board for all the moderation required for broad brushes against "statists" (which is to say anyone who believes in slightly more government than libertarians or anarchists seem to think proper), social conservatives, those who might have the slightest concern with OCing of long guns, those who actually think deadly force in defense of property is morally troubling, or anyone else who offers any difference of opinion from what a few folks have determined is the one true path.

Some folks need to stop acting as if every minor disagreement, or different point of view, or even someone playing devil's advocate is a personal affront to their honor and good name. A little less name calling and a little more effort to either ignore viewpoints you don't like, or to see if there is something worth considering, would help a lot.

I've been honored to be a member of this forum for over 8 years. I've seen the ebbs and flow. And right now, things are at a low point in terms of civility and useful discourse. It isn't the first time I've seen it. I hope we can correct the tone and tenor soon.

If what we are posting is making it more difficult to work together (either in person, or even electronically) to promote, protect, and advance RKBA, then our postings are counterproductive. (And I admit some guilt on this front as of late.) There are a lot of general discussion boards that can be used for recreation, even for having a nice online fight when that is desired.

GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) has been very successful the last 15 years in building and maintaining coalitions of gun owners who successfully advance our RKBA because we have stridently stuck to the principle that we are single issue: we care about RKBA. We don't care where anyone stands on immigration, taxes, family/parental rights, drugs, UFOs, or any other issue as long as we can mostly agree on RKBA and work civilly together on that. Among our principals we have a conservative, a libertarian, and a traditional liberal. Our membership spans a wider spectrum than that. It is a very successful strategy that has worked very well to advance RKBA here in Utah.

I apologize for the extent to which I've allowed personality conflicts to cause me to be less than civil in some interactions here. It is my sincere desire to work together to advance RKBA in the vast areas where there is agreement. In the small areas of RKBA where there may be disagreement, I seek to be respectful and civil. I am imperfect. But I am trying.

I enjoy a good conversation or informal debate as much as the next guy. Heaven knows I can hold my own in how many words I type. And wholesome recreation among those who have some shared interests and views is a good thing. I hope we can be a little slower to damage the ability to work together.

Charles

Grapeshot · Jan 9, 2015

utbagpiper said:
Rules need to be applied evenly and if broad brushes against anarchists were to result in moderation, I think Grape would have to shut down the board for all the moderation required for broad brushes against "statists" (which is to say anyone who believes in slightly more government than libertarians or anarchists seem to think proper), social conservatives, those who might have the slightest concern with OCing of long guns, those who actually think deadly force in defense of property is morally troubling, or anyone else who offers any difference of opinion from what a few folks have determined is the one true path.

Some folks need to stop acting as if every minor disagreement, or different point of view, or even someone playing devil's advocate is a personal affront to their honor and good name. A little less name calling and a little more effort to either ignore viewpoints you don't like, or to see if there is something worth considering, would help a lot.

I've been honored to be a member of this forum for over 8 years. I've seen the ebbs and flow. And right now, things are at a low point in terms of civility and useful discourse. It isn't the first time I've seen it. I hope we can correct the tone and tenor soon.

If what we are posting is making it more difficult to work together (either in person, or even electronically) to promote, protect, and advance RKBA, then our postings are counterproductive. (And I admit some guilt on this front as of late.) There are a lot of general discussion boards that can be used for recreation, even for having a nice online fight when that is desired.

GOUtah! (Gun Owners of Utah!) has been very successful the last 15 years in building and maintaining coalitions of gun owners who successfully advance our RKBA because we have stridently stuck to the principle that we are single issue: we care about RKBA. We don't care where anyone stands on immigration, taxes, family/parental rights, drugs, UFOs, or any other issue as long as we can mostly agree on RKBA and work civilly together on that. Among our principals we have a conservative, a libertarian, and a traditional liberal. Our membership spans a wider spectrum than that. It is a very successful strategy that has worked very well to advance RKBA here in Utah.

I apologize for the extent to which I've allowed personality conflicts to cause me to be less than civil in some interactions here. It is my sincere desire to work together to advance RKBA in the vast areas where there is agreement. In the small areas of RKBA where there may be disagreement, I seek to be respectful and civil. I am imperfect. But I am trying.

I enjoy a good conversation or informal debate as much as the next guy. Heaven knows I can hold my own in how many words I type. And wholesome recreation among those who have some shared interests and views is a good thing. I hope we can be a little slower to damage the ability to work together.

Charles

Thank you - appreciated.

It has been said that I am trying.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 9, 2015

utbagpiper said:
you are obliged under the forum rules to provide "citations" to your claims. You claimed "lots of logical leaps" and have not bothered to even fully explain a single "logical leap."

i consider this discussion closed.

Charles

grapeshot said:
gentlemen! This is a road trod too often here lately.

Having the last word only furthers the personal contest - far better to ignore and walk away.

lol.......I find that more humorous than the misinterpretation of the rules.

OC for ME · Jan 12, 2015

We are (are we?) treading very closely to a kumbaya moment.

When in the course of human events...

Anyway, anarchy is not anywhere close to what The Founders envisioned for this great nation in my view. In fact if it were not for a smidge of anarchy we would likely not have a BoR.

Were it possible to have the government of 1791....

The Castle Doctrine precept is founded in our fundamental right to protect ours, whether person or property. We are not (should not) be judged on this score. No, I'm no DM who seems to indicate that a cap is the answer to all trespassing issues.

sudden valley gunner · Jan 12, 2015

OC for ME said:
We are (are we?) treading very closely to a kumbaya moment.

When in the course of human events...

Anyway, anarchy is not anywhere close to what The Founders envisioned for this great nation in my view. In fact if it were not for a smidge of anarchy we would likely not have a BoR.

Were it possible to have the government of 1791....

The Castle Doctrine precept is founded in our fundamental right to protect ours, whether person or property. We are not (should not) be judged on this score. No, I'm no DM who seems to indicate that a cap is the answer to all trespassing issues.

I say they wanted as anarchistic Federal government as possible. The main function of the Feds was to deal with foreign and inter state issues.

I could make an argument that there is a clause in the constitution that makes a strong case for anarchy.

utbagpiper · Jan 12, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
I say they wanted as anarchistic Federal government as possible. The main function of the Feds was to deal with foreign and inter state issues.

I could make an argument that there is a clause in the constitution that makes a strong case for anarchy.

I guess it depends on how we parse words. There are provisions of the federal constitution that are quite totalitarian including the ability to impose capital punishment and to suspend habeus corpus.

The founders did not want a "weak" federal government. They had that with the Articles of Confederation. They wanted a federal government that was very strong, in a very limited number of areas, and then completely without power in all other areas.

They delegated the power to print money to the federal government, and barred States from doing so, allowing States only to use gold or silver for currency. Do we want a weak currency? Do we want a weak system of weights and measures? Both would be bad for commerce.

The intellectual property provisions of the constitution allow congress to grant exclusive rights to authors and inventors for their works and inventions for limited times. This is an amazing power of the federal government for intangible, intellectual property, especially in the late 18th century. But it has been a significant pillar of commerce and technological progress. (Admittedly, we need to fix some things, but the constitutional power is there.)

Do you suppose the founders wanted a government that was weak or ineffective when it came to funding and manning a military?

Among the small number of powers delegated, I am convinced the framers wanted an effective, powerful government. They simply wanted that power strictly bounded within the areas delegated to the feds. And then no power exercised outside of those areas, but power reserved to the States and/or the people themselves.

This is federalism. Power is among the three branches of government, and also divided among the States and feds. States retain great latitude to set local laws and culture.

Sadly, the issue of slavery and the post-War racism manifested in Jim Crow laws (as opposed to the less overt racism prevalent in the North) lead to a dramatic reduction in both social and judicial/congressional respect for the notion of federalism and diversity of cultures among the several States.

Charles

utbagpiper · Jan 12, 2015

In response to Logan 5's post:

We've had this discussion in other threads. I have never taken to bragging about the work I or GOUtah! have done. I'm of the firm opinion that we can do a lot if we don't worry too much about who gets credit. But I will put my credentials up against yours any day when it comes to actually getting pro-RKBA idea passed into law here in Utah.

Anytime you want to start your list, let me know. Turns out I can't find a "Logan 5" (or any murderous characters from fiction) listed on the rolls of the GOP delegates, so I'm not at all convinced your credentials are as claimed.

To admit you don't know anything of GOUtah! is to admit that you are not at all involved in the actual legislative process in Utah. The NRA rep and I don't always agree, but have each other's personal cell numbers. We often agree and work with the USSC, and part company with them when we need to. To not know of GOUtah! is to be ignorant of Scott Engen and the pivotal roll he played in moving Utah away from discriminator/discretionary permits to shall issue and a strong State pre-emption.

I will claim some direct credit for keeping an anti-RKBA initiative off the ballot thus protecting our legal ability (with a permit) to carry into schools and protecting the rights of teachers to do likewise when this ability was new and susceptible to attack.

I will claim credit for the idea (implemented into law) that protected Utah's permit against being dropped by several other States.

I personally made multiple presentations to both interim and standing committees in behalf of Utah's Car Carry provision allowing concealed firearms and loaded handguns to be carried in cars without needing a permit.

I will also claim some personal credit for Utah "Parking Lot Preemption" law that protects employees from adverse employment action for having a firearm in their car, parked in the company parking lot.

I was personally part of helping to retire an anti-gun GOP legislator in my area. Janalee Tobias, at WAGC was also personally involved in that one. I was one of the last candidates to be able to legally file as "fusion candidate" for both GOP and Libertarian in one of those early races.

GOUtah! has helped stop several bad felony bills that would strip folks of RKBA for life over fairly minor offenses. In a couple of other cases, we were not able to stop the bills entirely, but we were able to force some amendments to reduce the risk of bad application of the law such as felony convictions only kicking in on the second offense for said crime.

GOUtah! has been involved in the successful efforts to force Wildlife Resources to abide State Preemption and drop anti-RKBA hunting regulations that prevented the carrying of self-defense firearms on hunts.

Now, if you want to be unhappy with me because I will call out your anti-Mormon bigotry for what it is, that is your right. But you are very close to a violation of forum rules in bashing a pro-RKBA group: GOUtah!. Do not tread in that area again.

And any time you gather enough courage to post your real name, we can compare your legislative accomplishments to those of Charles Hardy and GOUtah! Until then, I suggest a tad more civility.

Charles

sudden valley gunner · Jan 13, 2015

utbagpiper said:
I guess it depends on how we parse words. There are provisions of the federal constitution that are quite totalitarian including the ability to impose capital punishment and to suspend habeus corpus.

Capital punishment isn't necessarilly totalitarian, only under strict guidelines was habeus corpus to be suspended. Of course d-bags like Linconln ignored it.

The founders did not want a "weak" federal government. They had that with the Articles of Confederation. They wanted a federal government that was very strong, in a very limited number of areas, and then completely without power in all other areas.

You are right but the federalist pretty much lost. Almost everything they wanted they didn't get. So its irrelevant what they wanted.

They delegated the power to print money to the federal government, and barred States from doing so, allowing States only to use gold or silver for currency. Do we want a weak currency? Do we want a weak system of weights and measures? Both would be bad for commerce.

Still has nothing to do with my point. I say free market should delegate the choice of money. What you want shouldn't be imposed upon others.

The intellectual property provisions of the constitution allow congress to grant exclusive rights to authors and inventors for their works and inventions for limited times. This is an amazing power of the federal government for intangible, intellectual property, especially in the late 18th century. But it has been a significant pillar of commerce and technological progress. (Admittedly, we need to fix some things, but the constitutional power is there.)

Another tangential argument. Your last sentence is a fallacy. There is no evidence that it has been a significant pillar to commerce or technological progress.

Do you suppose the founders wanted a government that was weak or ineffective when it came to funding and manning a military?

Yes, limited to two years and no drafting power. It was to be voluntary.

Among the small number of powers delegated, I am convinced the framers wanted an effective, powerful government. They simply wanted that power strictly bounded within the areas delegated to the feds. And then no power exercised outside of those areas, but power reserved to the States and/or the people themselves.

Um, yea a very limited power. Nothing to refute/rebut my point.

This is federalism. Power is among the three branches of government, and also divided among the States and feds. States retain great latitude to set local laws and culture.

States not only retain great latitude, they retain their sovereignty and the right to withdraw from a federal union.

Sadly, the issue of slavery and the post-War racism manifested in Jim Crow laws (as opposed to the less overt racism prevalent in the North) lead to a dramatic reduction in both social and judicial/congressional respect for the notion of federalism and diversity of cultures among the several States.

Where do you come up with this stuff? Lincoln destroyed federalism and the courts followed in that path ever since.

It was fun reading and countering your post, still had nothing to do with my post.

OC for ME · Jan 13, 2015

Federalism, and those who support this concept, known as federalists, are supportive of increasing federal power and authority at the expense of individual liberty and state sovereignty. This is why the federalists despised and feared Jefferson, a advocate for individual liberty and state sovereignty.

utbagpiper · Jan 13, 2015

sudden valley gunner said:
Capital punishment isn't necessarilly totalitarian

Really? I think the power to end life is the ultimate power.

sudden valley gunner said:
Still has nothing to do with my point. I say free market should delegate the choice of money. What you want shouldn't be imposed upon others.

A fine position, that is hostile to the constitution. So I reject it.

sudden valley gunner said:
Another tangential argument. Your last sentence is a fallacy. There is no evidence that it has been a significant pillar to commerce or technological progress.

Actually, there is quite a bit of evidence that legal protection of IP leads to commercial and technological progress, just as protection of physical or real property leads to commerce. Certainly, the lack of such protections (as in communist nations, or even 2nd/3rd world nations lack a system for widespread recognition of who owns property) impairs commerce. A quick search will reveal the number of inventions in the USA vs the rest of the world.

sudden valley gunner said:
Yes, limited to two years and no drafting power. It was to be voluntary.

Wrong. Funding for the land forces was limited to two years at a time. Funding for the navy did have this limitation. This does not result in a weak military, but rather a military that remains under the control of civilian authority.

sudden valley gunner said:
Where do you come up with this stuff? Lincoln destroyed federalism and the courts followed in that path ever since.

That is pretty much what I wrote. But it seems you had a hard time understanding a lot of what I wrote, and a very "unique" understanding of the constitution itself.

sudden valley gunner said:
It was fun reading and countering your post, still had nothing to do with my post.

Yes, it appears you are interested more in disagreeing and trying to prove you are right than in actually having a dialogue or considering any different points of view.

So I'll leave you to your self.

Charles

utbagpiper · Jan 13, 2015

OC for ME said:
Federalism, and those who support this concept, known as federalists, are supportive of increasing federal power and authority at the expense of individual liberty and state sovereignty. This is why the federalists despised and feared Jefferson, a advocate for individual liberty and state sovereignty.

I believe you are conflating two similar, but different terms.

During the constitutional debates we had the Federalist and the anti-Federalists. The former argued for ratification of the Constitution, while the latter opposed ratification.

Federalism, on the other hand, is a concept of federal power limited to certain areas with States retaining much authority. It is, very much what the Federalist argued the constitution provided.

It is notable that having been less than supportive of the new Federal Constitution, Jefferson nonetheless sought and obtained the highest office under that constitution. Then while serving as president acted in arguably the most extra-constitutional manner of any president to that point with the Louisiana Purchase.

History and the persons who occupied center stage while it was being made, are not often black and white.

Charles

Castle Doctrine Under Fire - Score One For Freedom-Haters

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Regular Member

Legendary Warrior

Banned

Legendary Warrior

Regular Member

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned

Regular Member

Regular Member

Banned

Banned