Faith Focused Dating. Create your Free Profile and meet your Match! Sign Up for Free
A place to learn, mingle, and share

This room is for the discussion of current events,cultural issues and politics especially in relation to Catholic values.

Saint Thomas More was martyred during the Protestant Reformation for standing firm in the Faith and not recognizing the King of England as the Supreme Head of the Church.
Learn More:Saint Thomas More

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Roystan-340472 said: Subsidiarity can be a bit more complicated than the freedom of a silly person to do...
(Quote) Roystan-340472 said:




Subsidiarity can be a bit more complicated than the freedom of a silly person to do what he wants. A conscience per se means nothing: it has to be an informed conscience. Subsidiarity refers to the level that is likely to be the best informed about whether or not to do something. While you may be at the level of subsidiarity that is best informed about whether you should go to the bathroom before stepping onto a municipal bus, the level of subsidiarity that is best informed about whether you should be taking the bus trip at all may be your parent or the civil emergency authority in your town.


Is the 'competence to know what is the wise thing to do' in regards to owning a dozen AK47s at the subsidiarity level of the mind of the single gun collector or does it rest with the many minds in a legislature?



Why is there a necessary logical requirement for you to defer to John Doe's desire to own an arsenal when your own risk assessments suggest that your physical safety could be impaired? Is his brain better than yours? Why isn't there a necessary logical requirement for you to be a rational steward of your own interests and advocate to the legislature that they restrict John Doe's ability to own an arsenal? Rights under law (except for constitutional rights) aren't static. If they were, there wouldn't be lobbyists and there would be no need for an NRA. Why can't you argue that the status quo allowing John Doe to amass an arsenal be changed and let him argue the opposite?

--hide--

If an individual at my level cannot be competent in regard to what is wise in firearm ownership, then it is not possible for a legislator to be competent in that regard. There is no ontological change in a person who becomes a legislator, his humanity is interchangeable with mine.

This does not mean that there are not crazy people out there who do bad or unwise things with firearms, but until he's proven incompetent and criminal, he cannot be restricted as if he is incompetent and criminal. This has nothing to do with one brain being better than another. It has to do with subsidiarity and prudential judgment. Each man, in order to be good and moral, must know what it takes to do his duty productively and spend his liberty in a recreational or refreshing fashion. Until I have a good reason to believe that John Doe is not a good and moral man, I have no good reason to fear him if he owns an arsenal. In fact, to entertain such an unreasonable fear on an intellectual level would be quite uncharitable. To go even further and lobby that his ability to own a specific type of private property be restricted for no specific good reason (but rather for a "possible" reason, which may never in fact exist) is a usurpation of his natural right over his own private property.

Rerum Novarum applies this notion of right to property to extend in an even stronger fashion over heads of households as a sacred law of nature. To quote the encyclical: "Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, 'at least equal rights'; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.

"The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.

"But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. 'The child belongs to the father,' and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that 'the child belongs to the father' it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, 'before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.'[4] The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home. "

To sum up, if a man sees fit in his prudential judgment to own a firearm or many firearms for his own protection, or the protection of his family, that's his private business until he's convicted of actual criminal behavior.

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: So there is a popular vote, but it just doesn't mean anything? Is there proof that e...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:

So there is a popular vote, but it just doesn't mean anything? Is there proof that electors have broken the oath? Do all electors have to swear that oath, or only some? If only some, why is that?

You did refresh my memory that the popular preference and the elected president don't always match...I wonder how many people here were upset about that when George W. Bush was elected president even though he did not win the popular vote??

--hide--


The popular vote only means something if some federal judge gets a bee in his bonnet to sue an elector from a state which requires by law or oath he vote for the popular preference.

There may be proof that electors have voted contrarily to their oaths, but I don't know of it since it really doesn't concern me and I'm not all that interested to look. :)

Only some electors have to swear by oath to vote in line with the popular preference. It is up to individual states to decide whether they will require that of their electors. It's about a little under half the states, I think, that require the parallel vote of their electors. I can't answer why that is unless the legislators of the states have published their intentions in making such a requirement and I'm not concerned or interested enough to look it up. :)

I know that a lot of the so-called democrats were upset when GW was elected and they made a lot of noise, but so what? I doubt even having Gore for a president would have changed the face of the last 15 or so years in US history.

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: The popular vote only means something if some federal judge gets a bee in his bonnet to...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:



The popular vote only means something if some federal judge gets a bee in his bonnet to sue an elector from a state which requires by law or oath he vote for the popular preference.

There may be proof that electors have voted contrarily to their oaths, but I don't know of it since it really doesn't concern me and I'm not all that interested to look. :)

Only some electors have to swear by oath to vote in line with the popular preference. It is up to individual states to decide whether they will require that of their electors. It's about a little under half the states, I think, that require the parallel vote of their electors. I can't answer why that is unless the legislators of the states have published their intentions in making such a requirement and I'm not concerned or interested enough to look it up. :)

I know that a lot of the so-called democrats were upset when GW was elected and they made a lot of noise, but so what? I doubt even having Gore for a president would have changed the face of the last 15 or so years in US history.

--hide--

Thanks for your comments Chelsea. Sorry for all the questions - I'm sure some of them I could've found on my own, but it's easier to just ask here to see if I get a response. I don't think I care enough to spend the time to look up answers to all my questions, so I certainly don't expect you or anyone else to feel obligated to :)

I'm sure there were democrats who were upset when GW was elected, just as I am sure there would be an outcry from the conservative side if a democrat were elected without winning the popular vote. My point was just that people should consider things from both sides, and that things like that often balance out.

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: Thanks for your comments Chelsea. Sorry for all the questions - I'm sure some of them I c...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:


Thanks for your comments Chelsea. Sorry for all the questions - I'm sure some of them I could've found on my own, but it's easier to just ask here to see if I get a response. I don't think I care enough to spend the time to look up answers to all my questions, so I certainly don't expect you or anyone else to feel obligated to :)

I'm sure there were democrats who were upset when GW was elected, just as I am sure there would be an outcry from the conservative side if a democrat were elected without winning the popular vote. My point was just that people should consider things from both sides, and that things like that often balance out.

--hide--

I don't mind the questions, and I'm sure that some posters who've looked some of these things up would be glad to fill in the details, too, if they have them, of course.

Also, the whole problem with denoting a "left" and a "right" or a "liberal" and a "conservative" side in politics in the USA is that the definition of those terms is evolving to the point that our leftist and liberal founding fathers would appear to us far-right conservatives today. I mean, back in the day homosexual acts were a capital offense, though it's reported that Thomas Jefferson advocated castration as a means of tempering the penalty from death. You won't hear stuff like that from the left today. :)

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: I don't mind the questions, and I'm sure that some posters who've looked s...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

I don't mind the questions, and I'm sure that some posters who've looked some of these things up would be glad to fill in the details, too, if they have them, of course.

Also, the whole problem with denoting a "left" and a "right" or a "liberal" and a "conservative" side in politics in the USA is that the definition of those terms is evolving to the point that our leftist and liberal founding fathers would appear to us far-right conservatives today. I mean, back in the day homosexual acts were a capital offense, though it's reported that Thomas Jefferson advocated castration as a means of tempering the penalty from death. You won't hear stuff like that from the left today. :)

--hide--


Yes, I agree with the issues around labeling people and ideas as being left/right/liberal/conservative, and it's certainly not limited just to the USA. I know many people have a hard time being labelled as such, as there are often certain topics or ideas that they like/dislike about different people/politicians/ideas. I think most people who don't get sucked into the ideological mindset can see both good and bad with all political parties/ideologies/politicians. Different people have different priorities :)

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Angela-374523 said: Hi Peter,In Canadian history books, as you know, they are the "Loyalist...
(Quote) Angela-374523 said:




Hi Peter,

In Canadian history books, as you know, they are the "Loyalists". In the British tradition, the label "Tories" represents a particular type of conservatism. So, the Tories that fled the American Revolution (the Loyalists) were conservative while the American revolutionaries were not conservative at all, they were actually quite radical in terms of their democratic liberalism. Basically, their Tories become our Conservatives, keeping the Tory label. I know, people's heads are spinning, but the American revolutionaries were NOT conservative. They tarred and feathered the conservatives. The notion of a purely American conservatism gels only after the American revolution.

--hide--
Hi Angela, IIRC, British Naval units transported tens of thousands from the NYC area to other locations outside the US after the revolution. It would be interesting to see the history of property transfers/confiscations over the decade of the revolution.


The colonists were defending the rights of Englishmen, in a situation of increasing force applied from England to limit and rescind many of the original Charters. The Glorious Revolution had consequences in America. The Declaration lists some of the violations. It took years for most colonists to come to agree with the Revolutionaries of 1776-1783.


In re weapons, it should be noted that the Redcoats marched to Lexington to confiscate weapons, and arrest individuals speaking freely. The individual right to arms in England had been upheld through the "gamekeeper" cases for generations. The first Minutemen to respond were the local Pastor ( who was hiding two prominent colonists the British wanted to arrest ) and members of his congregation. Further, IMHO, the Revolution was kept alive through some critical battles won by the local, not Continental, units of irregulars , who had better weapons ( and tactics ) than the Redcoats.


I would agree that the colonists eventually became radical for the time, as even England was centralizing power rapidly, redefining the traditional rights of Englishmen. The "Revolutionary Constitutions" in many colonies were vastly more "democratic" than anything since ancient Greece. Just me, I suspect that the thought evolution for many slid from wanting to defend tradition to attempting to remove the oversight of a government most came to view as not the legitimate, traditional English system. The Constitutional ratification debates ( and methods ) replayed the conflict, while state Constitutions then became more "conservative".


In practice, again just me, I regard the first and second amendments as of equal importance, and symbiotic. Low ( or no ) info voters can't make informed decisions. Since the current administration claims the right to rule by non-democratic executive decree and administrative regulation, the last defense of the first amendment is the second amendment.


The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the killing of nearly 50,000,000 innocent children.


The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the Presidents to wage non-declared wars, and remotely execute people of the President's choice, without even a military tribunal.


The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the long march to cultural and political decadence.


The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the changing of the US from an authority consensus based society to a power based society. Since the advent of gunpowder enabled the lowest serf to bring down the highest lord of the land, in this one time-specific instance, once the rule of law is lost, I agree on MaOZedong's point about power coming from guns.

The majority of my generation has stood by and permitted the massive accumulation of centralized government power. For nearly 45 years, firearms control legislation has mushroomed. Do actual crime stats show improvement?


There are many areas for discussion, but I am not convinced that pouring more fuel of money, power, or acquiescence into the fire of bigger , less responsive ( or responsible ), and eventually unaccountable government will benefit us.


So, on the streets today, who are the "loyalists" or "Tories" ?





Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: So how was the constitution made? How were the amendments to the constitution made? Didn...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:

So how was the constitution made? How were the amendments to the constitution made? Didn't those change your rights? Weren't those made by the government and/or someone else?

--hide--
Hi Peter, the Declaration explicitly defined the source of our rights to be extra planetary. Governments cannot grant rights. The US Constitution is the instrument to protect those rights through a limited government. The US remains the only chosen government. I'll grant that a thorough examination of the franchise, structure, and discussion in many of the State rarifying conventions would yield grounds for alarm by "Progressive" Luddite standards. No other government allowed and continues to allow the people to vote on its existence, membership, goals, or scope. Does the US have imperfections ? Certainly. But it remains parsecs closer to ideal than any other.


One of the saddest things is that in so many of our former institutions of free inquiry the above points can no longer be freely discussed, but typical troglodyte MENA/"religious" can shout STFU at dissenters.

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said: If an individual at my level cannot be competent in regard to what is wise in firearm ...
(Quote) Chelsea-743484 said:

If an individual at my level cannot be competent in regard to what is wise in firearm ownership, then it is not possible for a legislator to be competent in that regard. There is no ontological change in a person who becomes a legislator, his humanity is interchangeable with mine.

This does not mean that there are not crazy people out there who do bad or unwise things with firearms, but until he's proven incompetent and criminal, he cannot be restricted as if he is incompetent and criminal. This has nothing to do with one brain being better than another. It has to do with subsidiarity and prudential judgment. Each man, in order to be good and moral, must know what it takes to do his duty productively and spend his liberty in a recreational or refreshing fashion. Until I have a good reason to believe that John Doe is not a good and moral man, I have no good reason to fear him if he owns an arsenal. In fact, to entertain such an unreasonable fear on an intellectual level would be quite uncharitable. To go even further and lobby that his ability to own a specific type of private property be restricted for no specific good reason (but rather for a "possible" reason, which may never in fact exist) is a usurpation of his natural right over his own private property.

Rerum Novarum applies this notion of right to property to extend in an even stronger fashion over heads of households as a sacred law of nature. To quote the encyclical: "Provided, therefore, the limits which are prescribed by the very purposes for which it exists be not transgressed, the family has at least equal rights with the State in the choice and pursuit of the things needful to its preservation and its just liberty. We say, 'at least equal rights'; for, inasmuch as the domestic household is antecedent, as well in idea as in fact, to the gathering of men into a community, the family must necessarily have rights and duties which are prior to those of the community, and founded more immediately in nature. If the citizens, if the families on entering into association and fellowship, were to experience hindrance in a commonwealth instead of help, and were to find their rights attacked instead of being upheld, society would rightly be an object of detestation rather than of desire.

"The contention, then, that the civil government should at its option intrude into and exercise intimate control over the family and the household is a great and pernicious error. True, if a family finds itself in exceeding distress, utterly deprived of the counsel of friends, and without any prospect of extricating itself, it is right that extreme necessity be met by public aid, since each family is a part of the commonwealth. In like manner, if within the precincts of the household there occur grave disturbance of mutual rights, public authority should intervene to force each party to yield to the other its proper due; for this is not to deprive citizens of their rights, but justly and properly to safeguard and strengthen them.

"But the rulers of the commonwealth must go no further; here, nature bids them stop. Paternal authority can be neither abolished nor absorbed by the State; for it has the same source as human life itself. 'The child belongs to the father,' and is, as it were, the continuation of the father's personality; and speaking strictly, the child takes its place in civil society, not of its own right, but in its quality as member of the family in which it is born. And for the very reason that 'the child belongs to the father' it is, as St. Thomas Aquinas says, 'before it attains the use of free will, under the power and the charge of its parents.'[4] The socialists, therefore, in setting aside the parent and setting up a State supervision, act against natural justice, and destroy the structure of the home. "

To sum up, if a man sees fit in his prudential judgment to own a firearm or many firearms for his own protection, or the protection of his family, that's his private business until he's convicted of actual criminal behavior.

--hide--
Hi Chelsea, good points.

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Peter-189584 said: So having firearms in the house will likely escalate the violence if/when criminals decid...
(Quote) Peter-189584 said:



So having firearms in the house will likely escalate the violence if/when criminals decide to break in and will make the house an increased target for robbery from criminals who want more guns? I agree.

I agree that publishing the households that have guns is not a good idea, but I also think that not many households should have guns. More guns = more access to guns for people who shouldn't have them.

I have never heard of gun owners being significant victims of vandalism from anti-gun protestors.

--hide--

How would you like a list of your valuables posted in the newpaper? It is no different than the posting of ownership of guns. We have a right to privacy in America or at least we used to.

- Elizabeth

Jan 25th 2013 new

(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said: How would you like a list of your valuables posted in the newpaper? It is no differe...
(Quote) Elizabeth-462557 said:

How would you like a list of your valuables posted in the newpaper? It is no different than the posting of ownership of guns. We have a right to privacy in America or at least we used to.

- Elizabeth

--hide--


Please re-read my post. I specifically said I did not think publishing the households that own guns was a good idea. Please do not put words in my mouth. Of course I would not like a list of my valuables posted in the newspaper.

Posts 81 - 90 of 101