It just gets better and better for gun owners

[pErvinalia]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Mine too. And it's an opinion that we are prepared to enforce with extreme prejudice against those who would try to force their opinions on us.

Remember that.

But that doesn't make your opinion any more correct than anyone else's.

That's logic, Seth. Remember that.

[Collector1337]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Well no fucking shit it is. I never said that it wasn't.

But, it's also a bullshit emotional argument. It's like I'm supposed to be guilted into doing "what's best for society."

It's absolutely pathetic.

[JimC]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Well no fucking shit it is. I never said that it wasn't.

But, it's also a bullshit emotional argument. It's like I'm supposed to be guilted into doing "what's best for society."

It's absolutely pathetic.

I suspect there are plenty of things that you happily obey, enforced by laws because they are best for a society as a whole.

Speed limits, for example...

So, you want to be all precious and selective about what societal rules you will except, and which you will ignore...

Sure, agitate against rules which you think are just plain wrong, but expect sanctions if you break ones still being enforced.

By the way, you will be more effective in agitating against unjust laws if you work together with like-minded citizens in some sort of collective, like the NRA...

[Seth]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Mine too. And it's an opinion that we are prepared to enforce with extreme prejudice against those who would try to force their opinions on us.

Remember that.

But that doesn't make your opinion any more correct than anyone else's.

That's logic, Seth. Remember that.

Sure it does, because the right to keep and bear arms is a universal, natural and unalienable right of all humans.

[pErvinalia]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Mine too. And it's an opinion that we are prepared to enforce with extreme prejudice against those who would try to force their opinions on us.

Remember that.

But that doesn't make your opinion any more correct than anyone else's.

That's logic, Seth. Remember that.

Sure it does, because the right to keep and bear arms is a universal, natural and unalienable right of all humans.

Except it isn't.

This is a rationalist forum, not a religionist forum.

[Seth]

Sure it does, because the right to keep and bear arms is a universal, natural and unalienable right of all humans.

Except it isn't.

This is a rationalist forum, not a religionist forum.

You could have fooled me, given the massive amount of religious dogma you and other spout here on an hourly basis.

[pErvinalia]

It's a shame you can't back up your empty rhetoric.

[Seth]

It's a shame you can't back up your empty rhetoric.

I don't have to, you do it for me every single day.

Ipse dixit, quod erat demonstrandum

[Warren Dew]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Well no fucking shit it is. I never said that it wasn't.

But, it's also a bullshit emotional argument. It's like I'm supposed to be guilted into doing "what's best for society."

It's absolutely pathetic.

I suspect there are plenty of things that you happily obey, enforced by laws because they are best for a society as a whole.

Speed limits, for example...

You. must. be. kidding.

No one in the U.S. obeys speed limits.

[Collector1337]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Well no fucking shit it is. I never said that it wasn't.

But, it's also a bullshit emotional argument. It's like I'm supposed to be guilted into doing "what's best for society."

It's absolutely pathetic.

I suspect there are plenty of things that you happily obey, enforced by laws because they are best for a society as a whole.

Speed limits, for example...

You. must. be. kidding.

No one in the U.S. obeys speed limits.

True story.

[Collector1337]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Well no fucking shit it is. I never said that it wasn't.

But, it's also a bullshit emotional argument. It's like I'm supposed to be guilted into doing "what's best for society."

It's absolutely pathetic.

I suspect there are plenty of things that you happily obey, enforced by laws because they are best for a society as a whole.

Speed limits, for example...

So, you want to be all precious and selective about what societal rules you will except, and which you will ignore...

Sure, agitate against rules which you think are just plain wrong, but expect sanctions if you break ones still being enforced.

By the way, you will be more effective in agitating against unjust laws if you work together with like-minded citizens in some sort of collective, like the NRA...

[Seth]

Don't ever use the, "it's what's best for society" or for the "greater good of civilized society" arguments because they are bullshit. It's "what's best for society" IN YOUR OPINION. That's it. It's a fucking worthless argument.

And that's your opinion.

Well no fucking shit it is. I never said that it wasn't.

But, it's also a bullshit emotional argument. It's like I'm supposed to be guilted into doing "what's best for society."

It's absolutely pathetic.

I suspect there are plenty of things that you happily obey, enforced by laws because they are best for a society as a whole.

Speed limits, for example...

So, you want to be all precious and selective about what societal rules you will except, and which you will ignore...

Depends on the rule. A speed limit does not violate my right to freedom of travel, it merely regulates time, place and manner of executing my right to travel in a reasonable manner.

A gun ban, however, absolutely violates my right to keep and bear arms. Since that right is a fundamental, natural and constitutional individual right, it trumps any and all rules that ban the possession and carrying of arms. Period.

A rule that regulates the time, place and manner of carrying arms must, as it infringes on a fundamental right, meet a severe test for constitutionality known as the "Strict Scrutiny Test," which requires that the government must prove (in court) that the government has a "compelling need" to so regulate; that the regulation be the minimum possible degree of regulation necessary to achieve the legitimate government goal; and that the regulation must substantially achieve the intended constitutional purpose without unduly infringing on constitutional protections.

If the issue is "Handguns can fall into the hands of criminals and be used to commit murder" then the hurdles that a gun ban must overcome as a constitutional response are roughly as follows:

1. Does the government have a compelling need to prevent criminals from committing murder with handguns? The answer to that question is obviously "yes, it does."

2. Is a gun ban the minimal possible degree of regulation necessary to achieve the legitimate government goal of keeping handguns away from criminals? The answer is obviously "no, it is not." This is because gun bans do not themselves prevent criminals from obtaining handguns, they might make it more difficult or expensive to do so while at the time infringing on the law-abiding citizenry's right to have handguns for lawful self defense.

3. Does the gun ban actually substantially achieve the intended constitutional purpose? The answer is "no, it does not" because a) a general gun ban denies law-abiding persons their right to keep and bear arms suitable for personal defense; and b) a general gun ban does very little to prevent criminals from obtaining, or manufacturing handguns illegally.

Therefore, such bans are unconstitutional, as the Supreme Court pointed out in Heller and McDonald.

[JimC]

My main point in that post is to show the absurdity of Collector (on the face of it) rejecting any rule which is there "for the good of society"

I know you guys think that some types of personal rights trump some types of societal rules, but it is rather stupid to reject them all out of hand.

Having said that, there have been rules based on "the good of society as a whole" which were excessively limiting of personal freedom (e.g. Prohibition, or homosexuality being illegal), and needed to be opposed and overturned. We may disagree about the gun thing, but I am well aware that overly restrictive government regulations are often worth opposing, on a case by case basis.

[Seth]

My main point in that post is to show the absurdity of Collector (on the face of it) rejecting any rule which is there "for the good of society"

I know you guys think that some types of personal rights trump some types of societal rules, but it is rather stupid to reject them all out of hand.

Having said that, there have been rules based on "the good of society as a whole" which were excessively limiting of personal freedom (e.g. Prohibition, or homosexuality being illegal), and needed to be opposed and overturned. We may disagree about the gun thing, but I am well aware that overly restrictive government regulations are often worth opposing, on a case by case basis.

Well, the basic philosophy here is that what's good for individual liberty is generally good for society, and that under ordinary circumstances the argument "for the good of society" is viewed as an excuse for violating individual liberty that may or may not be justified. Here, before individual rights may be infringed, particular fundamental constitutional rights like speech, religion, press, arms, due process and other items in the Bill of Rights, "the good of society" is insufficient excuse for an infringement. Instead, the government must have a "compelling need" to regulate and that's the first prong of the strict-scrutiny test.

For example, it might be "good for society" to build a public highway or a municipal building on my property, but since property rights are fundamental constitutional rights, while society might ultimately be able to use the power of eminent domain to condemn my property and take if from me for public use, the constraints of the constitution require that the government give me "just compensation" for that taking.

Likewise, someone (usually a politician) might deem that "for the good of society" the Internet needs to be turned into a public utility and "net neutrality" laws must be imposed that give the government control over the content and delivery of speech and expression over the Internet. However, the liberty interests of the people in an unfettered, and unmonitored mode of communication must be carefully considered and the regulations must, if they are imposed at all, comport with the strict scrutiny test for constitutionality.

The short-hand objection of Collector to the phrase "for the good of society" is merely a reflection of the truth that this excuse is the most common excuse used by those in power to infringe upon or deny the rights of the individual, particularly by Marxists and their ilk. Therefore an initial knee-jerk rejection of the use of that phrase is actually quite appropriate, and is a manifestation of the belief that those proposing such regulations must first demonstrate a compelling need to regulate, that the regulation is the minimum possible infringement on individual rights absolutely necessary, and that the regulation actually accomplishes the legitimate government objective.

[pErvinalia]

You clearly don't know what "net neutrality" is. It's about treating all data as equal on the net.