MauiDog:


You kind of missed my point.  The only way that law will be enforced when the county chooses to ignore it,  is in the courts.
That is why "may issue" really  means no issue. Right to keep and bear arms means only if the Police chief continues to allow you to. 
A permission he can revoke at any time,   remember your permit( his permission) to purchase?
The police don't work for you,  they get paid by the county.
Cops can't be sued for violating your rights.  Police chief can't be sued.
Your guns will be rusting in a leaky container for months and years
before you get them back.
Hawaii has 4 electoral college votes and Idaho cancels us out.
Kill the local problems first,  they are just right down the road.

I don't know where you are getting that the police can't be sued for infringing on your rights.

In the past five years, the city paid about $1 million to private citizens to settle a variety of lawsuits stemming from actions
by police officers who have raided the wrong home, assaulted suspects, made false arrests and deprived citizens
of their civil rights.

Between January 2002 and May 2007, the city paid out 30 settlements totaling $1.1 million, according to a review of
city records. The records also show legal costs for fighting the lawsuits amounted to $837,599.92.

http://the.honoluluadvertiser.com/article/2007/Oct/08/ln/hawaii710080341.html

You're right about one thing.  I did miss your point, especially after you tried to "clarify" it.  You seem to be rambling from one point to another without really pointing out what one has to do with the other.

Wanna try for round three?   

Maui dog,

They say third time is a charm.
I vote Republican, only.  It is a waste of time, but I'm a loyal sort of guy.

We have laws that the government and cops ignore whenever
they feel like, it takes years and lots of money to obtain justice, if at all.
Ask C. Baker.
It is a trick cops do, called running "you through the system".   
They personally do not pay lawsuits, you and I do as tax payers.
The public pays for their lawyers, you pay $400 hr for yours.

We have more influence locally,  than we have nationally.

Having Ted Cruz as president will not solve our problem of
Nazi like gun laws, vigorously enforced by Democrat union
members.

If that seems too unfocused, I give up and I'll log off.


 

Maui dog,

They say third time is a charm.
I vote Republican, only.  It is a waste of time, but I'm a loyal sort of guy.

We have laws that the government and cops ignore whenever
they feel like, it takes years and lots of money to obtain justice, if at all.
Ask C. Baker.
It is a trick cops do, called running "you through the system".   
They personally do not pay lawsuits, you and I do as tax payers.
The public pays for their lawyers, you pay $400 hr for yours.

We have more influence locally,  than we have nationally.

Having Ted Cruz as president will not solve our problem of
Nazi like gun laws, vigorously enforced by Democrat union
members.

If that seems too unfocused, I give up and I'll log off.

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out comment! 

I NEVER expect the federal government to fix our local problems.  However, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it IS  a federal issue.  The reason Hawaii and California has these rules in places is they are leftovers from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  The states and local governments which are run by Liberals who truly believe those "solutions" fix problems decided to keep them in place since there was a federal precedent for them.  That made the laws much more palatable -- we'd already lived with them federally for 10 years, so there was less argument against keeping them locally.

The President sets the tone.  Look what happened after Obama's Sandy Hook speeches.  He might not have banned guns, but he was sure getting that ball rolling as far as he could take it.

That is a lucid, intelligent, well thought-out comment! 

I NEVER expect the federal government to fix our local problems.  However, in the case of the 2nd Amendment, it IS  a federal issue.  The reason Hawaii and California has these rules in places is they are leftovers from the 1994 Assault Weapons Ban.  The states and local governments who are run by Liberals who truly believe those "solutions" fix problems decided to keep them in place since there was a federal precedent for them.  That made the laws much more palatable -- we'd already lived with them federally for 10 years, so there was less argument against keeping them locally.

The President sets the tone.  Look what happened after Obama's Sandy Hook speeches.  He might not have banned guns, but he was sure getting that ball rolling as far as he could take it.

two youts?

Socialism is a pipe dream.  No society that has tried it has succeeded long term. 

never said it was ever successful, and i understand why it will never be purely successful.

i just dont think there's anything wrong with the idea itself.  people act like its a declaration of selling your soul sometimes.

never said it was ever successful, and i understand why it will never be purely successful.

i just dont think there's anything wrong with the idea itself.  people act like its a declaration of selling your soul sometimes.

When you look at the millions of people killed by Socialist governments, it's not about your soul, but your very existence on the planet.

An idea is one of the most dangerous things in our world.  iSiS and Al Queda are founded on ideas.  Ideas are what drive Skinheads and radicals.

It's one thing to discuss the potentials of Socialism.  The danger lies in the separation of theory and historical reality.  That's why some studies lately say over half polled do not see anything wrong with having a Socialist President in the White House.

The danger is real, and the people who see no problem with the idea of Socialism do not always think past what the politicians they believe in tell them to think.

Great quote from the movie, Fury: "Ideals are peaceful.... History is violent."

Socialism is a pipe dream because in order to achieve it, you have to factor out the human nature aspect. The same holds true for Communism. In theory, both systems seem lovely, but when applied in the real world, they can lead to downright totalitarian tyranny, i.e. the U.S.S.R, Mao's China, and the Khmer Rouge are examples. Human beings are hardwired to look after their own self interests, and Socialism/Communism seeks to override that very human trait.

Now, to the question of a Republican President changing things. There are only two candidates that would, in my opinion, shake up the status quo: Rand Paul and Ted Cruz.

Either man would make positive changes. It just depends if you favor a more libertarian or conservative flavor to your politics. I prefer Cruz or over Paul, but wouldn't be unhappy if Paul won it.

I will say one of the biggest things a President could do but isn't mentioned is audit and abolish the Federal Reserve. Though I think Paul would be the more likely candidate to do it, I have doubts even he could push against the ingrained powers that be that will NEVER abolish the Fed.

Of course, a little down the list would be abolishing the IRS; getting rid of Obamacare; getting rid of Dodd/Frank; replacing Ruth Bader Ginsburg with a conservative justice; abolishing the EPA; abolishing the DOE (Dept. of Education); abolishing the BATFE; and charging James Clapper with perjury for lying before Congress.

The idea that socialism and communism both "seem lovely" but can't survive first contact with human nature is flawed.  Even in their purest form, neither communism nor socialism are just, moral systems.  The idea that someone else is entitled to the fruits of my labor is, in my opinion, inherently wrong.  I'm not opposed to the idea that the government should provide a safety net to ensure a minimum level of subsistence, but the idea that, regardless of how hard you work, that all you get to have is that minimum level is indefensible.

The idea that socialism and communism both "seem lovely" but can't survive first contact with human nature is flawed.  Even in their purest form, neither communism nor socialism are just, moral systems.  The idea that someone else is entitled to the fruits of my labor is, in my opinion, inherently wrong.  I'm not opposed to the idea that the government should provide a safety net to ensure a minimum level of subsistence, but the idea that, regardless of how hard you work, that all you get to have is that minimum level is indefensible.

You need to reread what I wrote. I loathe both systems, but I'm able to play Devil's Advocate and see why the hard left and other foolish people are swayed by the "everyone's equal" mentality that Socialism/Communism strives for.  It appeals to moral adolescence.

And your own post backs up what I stated. Morality is a human construct. Each system is immoral. We agree there. So removing human nature and those things created by humanity like morality is the only way it would work. If you remove the human factor (morality), and then it would work because each system is inherently immoral.

When you look at the millions of people killed by Socialist governments, it's not about your soul, but your very existence on the planet.

An idea is one of the most dangerous things in our world.  iSiS and Al Queda are founded on ideas.  Ideas are what drive Skinheads and radicals.

It's one thing to discuss the potentials of Socialism.  The danger lies in the separation of theory and historical reality.  That's why some studies lately say over half polled do not see anything wrong with having a Socialist President in the White House.

The danger is real, and the people who see no problem with the idea of Socialism do not always think past what the politicians they believe in tell them to think.

there's a huge difference between an idea, and actually applying it. 

and be fair.  the ideas that back terrorist organizations are far different than a well intentioned, but flawed, governmental philosophy.

like i said, socialism as an IDEA, is not inherently evil.   i never said it was ever well implemented, or that it was a good idea to base economic around it, or that it ever even has a shot at working at a large scale. 

Morality is a human construct.

I think we've found our fundamental disagreement, and I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind.   

like i said, socialism as an IDEA, is not inherently evil.

I disagree entirely; socialism, as an idea, IS inherently evil.

I disagree entirely; socialism, as an idea, IS inherently evil.

that's like saying that capitalism is evil because it promotes classes that extend down family lines where people benefit through no effort of their own just because they happen to be born into money..  there's nothing wrong with the idea, there's just obvious flaws in reality, just as there is with every economic idea.  some are obviously worse than others.  that does not make the idea itself evil. 

socialism wasnt conceived specifically to oppress people.  it was just used in that manner because humans are too greedy for something like that to work.  that does not make the idea evil, it makes the people evil.


back to the actual point of my post.  i understand the point of the judges.  im just wondering if a a super majority would be possible in response to another democrat president.  that is an interesting scenario.

that's like saying that capitalism is evil because it promotes classes that extend down family lines where people benefit through no effort of their own just because they happen to be born into money..  there's nothing wrong with the idea, there's just obvious flaws in reality, just as there is with every economic idea.  some are obviously worse than others.  that does not make the idea itself evil. 

socialism wasnt conceived specifically to oppress people.  it was just used in that manner because humans are too greedy for something like that to work.  that does not make the idea evil, it makes the people evil.


back to the actual point of my post.  i understand the point of the judges.  im just wondering if a a super majority would be possible in response to another democrat president.  that is an interesting scenario.

If a Socialist society abolishes individual freedom in favor of a state-owned and operated economy, how can that NOT be conceived specifically to oppress people?

If you honestly believe that God (or nature) has endowed all men with certain rights, including life and liberty, then what is in opposition to these rights is not only oppressive, but morally wrong.  Socialism by definition demands that the rights of the individual be trumped by the needs of the people as a whole.  The needs of the many outweigh the needs of the one -- as if the needs of the many cannot be met while simultaneously protecting the rights of the individual.

“A society that puts equality before freedom will get neither. A society that puts freedom before equality will get a high degree of both.”

“Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself.”

― Milton Friedman



The Communist Manifesto says the only way to achieve Socialism is for the State (Government) to own the means of production.  That means the factories, raw materials, minerals, tools, education system, distribution system, trade within the state and with other nations, and basically each and every industry is owned by the state.

I submit there is an implication there that this much power over the citizenry can only produce a corrupt and oppressive government.  Without the means of fighting back or the leverage inherent in a free society to select their leadership, oppression is a natural result of Socialism.

In a Socialist state, the only way to not be oppressed is to be part of the government at its highest level.  However, even then, you will have to watch your back, as everyone will be looking for a chance to displace you.

The lack of individual freedom is not some unforeseen consequence of Socialism.  It is part of the design.  By definition, Socialism is a "stepping stone" on the path to true Communism.  Communism can never be truly attained as long as anyone, in any nation, opposes it.  That is similar to the Muslim imperative that requires all non-believers be either killed, converted, or subjugated.

Socialism cannot coexist with individual freedom.  Any society which denies it's people freedom is oppressive.  Therefore, Socialism, by design, is oppressive.

I think we've found our fundamental disagreement, and I don't think either of us is going to change the other's mind.   

Morality isn't a human construct? Alright. Where did does it come from, then?

Morality is a set of beliefs that PEOPLE construct - it isn't created by animals or inanimate objects. Ergo, it's a human creation.

The fact that all you can do is respond with a "we'll agree to disagree" rebuttal shows me you know you're wrong here.

Morality isn't a human construct? Alright. Where did does it come from, then?

Morality is a set of beliefs that PEOPLE construct - it isn't created by animals or inanimate objects. Ergo, it's a human creation.

Hi, causa mortis.  I would like to respond to your question with the utmost respect for your point of view -- I hope this reply comes across as such.

Christians believe in a creator, that man was made in God's image and that we are more than just animals that evolved having opposable thumbs.  Taking this world view into account, my understanding is that the western views of morality is a product of divine revelation, not of human reason.  From Jewish history, God gave Moses the 10 commandments (written by God's own hands) at Mt. Sinai and this has been the basis and cornerstone of Western morality ever since. 

I don't know anything about you nor your belief of God or views about Jewish history... Whether you believe in God or not, I am not trying to change your views or disrespect it in any way.  Just suggesting that there is another possible point of view on this.

 

Morality by another name is ethics.  By definition, it is knowing what is right or wrong, good or bad.

Mammals, whether human or not, seem to instinctively know what is good or bad.  Good helps them survive and procreate.  Bad causes pain, death, or other discomfort.

The psychological aspect of what is good or bad is tied to empathy.  You know that biting hurts, so you refrain from biting when you don't wish to inflict pain.  It might take socializing with others before you getting bitten teaches you that lesson, but you eventually do learn it.

One way to describe empathy is in the Bible.  When asked which of the 10 Commandments is the greatest, Jesus replies, "Here is all you need to know.  Do unto others as you would have them do unto you."

That pretty much spells out what we as living beings know WITHOUT THE NEED for a "construct."  We innately and instinctively know good and bad because we know what we would like to have done to us, as well as what we don't want done.

Therefore, in my opinion, good and bad, right and wrong, ethics and morality all exist in us without our need to have a standard defined for us.  For instance, if stealing is wrong, what about stealing to eat and survive?  These are ethical dilemmas the law has struggled with for ages, which is why we have judges and juries.  The assignment of GOOD and BAD to individual behavior is not so simple to do on paper. 

Those who lack a basic ability to empathize are what we often refer to as "psychopaths", and those who know better but choose to do the opposite are "sociopaths".  As a whole, society accepts and conforms to the behavioral norms.they understand as acceptable.

Also in my opinion, I believe it is a relatively recent development that people have come to trust that anything that is wrong is already illegal.  And anything that is not specifically forbidden by some law or guidance is permissible.  That is a cop-out.  Just because something you do is legal doesn't mean it is the right thing to do.

I think long before there was organized religion or criminal courts, there were standards of behavior expected of everyone in a given societal setting.  Those standards have changed over time, and they have been codified as "Commandments"  and "laws", but 98% of us know when we are doing something wrong even when there is no formal prohibition against it.

Hi, causa mortis.  I would like to respond to your question with the utmost respect for your point of view -- I hope this reply comes across as such.

Christians believe in a creator, that man was made in God's image and that we are more than just animals that evolved having opposable thumbs.  Taking this world view into account, my understanding is that the western views of morality is a product of divine revelation, not of human reason.  From Jewish history, God gave Moses the 10 commandments (written by God's own hands) at Mt. Sinai and this has been the basis and cornerstone of Western morality ever since. 

I don't know anything about you nor your belief of God or views about Jewish history... Whether you believe in God or not, I am not trying to change your views or disrespect it in any way.  Just suggesting that there is another possible point of view on this.

 

Nailed it.  Thanks.

Hi, causa mortis.  I would like to respond to your question with the utmost respect for your point of view -- I hope this reply comes across as such.

Christians believe in a creator, that man was made in God's image and that we are more than just animals that evolved having opposable thumbs.  Taking this world view into account, my understanding is that the western views of morality is a product of divine revelation, not of human reason.  From Jewish history, God gave Moses the 10 commandments (written by God's own hands) at Mt. Sinai and this has been the basis and cornerstone of Western morality ever since. 

I don't know anything about you nor your belief of God or views about Jewish history... Whether you believe in God or not, I am not trying to change your views or disrespect it in any way.  Just suggesting that there is another possible point of view on this.

 

I'm a deist, and as such, the Christian dogma, though I agree with many of its principles, is irrelevant to my belief system.

I'm a deist, and as such, the Christian dogma, though I agree with many of its principles, is irrelevant to my belief system.

When you stated your belief that "morality is a human construct," I assumed we subscribed to different faith traditions, and that's why I said neither of us is likely to change the other's mind.  It certainly wasn't out of a desire to avoid debate...  Ask anybody who knows me!