Re: Political views? Attn: Max More
From: Joe Dees (joedees@addall.com)
Date: Wed Jun 20 2001 - 09:54:07 MDT
('binary' encoding is not supported, stored as-is)
>Date: Wed, 20 Jun 2001 10:31:33 -0400
> Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> extropians@extropy.org Re: Political views? Attn: Max MoreReply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>
>Joe Dees wrote:
>
>> >Date: Tue, 19 Jun 2001 16:44:34 -0400
>> > Mike Lorrey <mlorrey@datamann.com> extropians@extropy.org Re: Political views?Reply-To: extropians@extropy.org
>> >
>> >Joe Dees wrote:
>> >
>> >> Minors are, indeed, minor, and unless they have been legally emancipated, possess, and SHOULD possess, both less rights and less responsibilities. Do you want infants driving?
>> >
>> >Minors do, in fact, drive cars, tractors, and legally operate machinery that is at least as dangerous as things like firearms. They also handle firearms quite safely in great multitudes when trained in their responsible use (far safer than minors handl
>e a
>> >utomobiles who are also trained in their responsible use). Do you think people shouldn't drive cars prior to age 21?
>> >
>> The answer is on my next section; correlative rights and responsibilities should be granted to maturing individuals gradually. Surely the ability to commit quick and easy long-range mass murder should be one that is granted before adulthood only under
>adult supervision.
>> >
>> >> As people age and, we hope, mature, they should be gradually given more of both correlatively. People who have proven themselves not to be able to responsibly employ certain rights the irresponsible exercise of which may cause harm to themselves or
> ot
>> >hers cannot be granted the free exercise of those rights, for their own sakes and for the sakes of those around them. As far a 'black on a sunny day', the preemptive refutation to that slanderous canard is found in my definition of social liberal abov
>e,
>> >and as far as what a person thinks, that is up to the person; it is what a person DOES that should decide whether they are responsible enough to safely exercise certain potentially injurious rights around others.
>> >
>> >Oddly enough, though, the overwhelming majority of felony convictions are against blacks with inadequate legal representation on evidence that would typically be dismissed if used against a white defendant, thus, the 'black on a sunny day' label sticks
>.
>> >
>> Not against me. I'm all for reforming the inequalities in our present judicial system. It is not primarily a racial thing, but a monetary one (witness OJ); money and race just have a historically based correlation that is responsible for the inequitie
>s. One remedy I see is to mandate that public defenders have their feet held to the fire to provide good representation for their clients.
>
>Yet you insist that anyone with a felony record should not be able to own a gun. Unless you are advocating that every black man ever convicted gets a new trial, then you are indeed supporting the 'black on a sunny day' convictions as a means of disarming
>people.
>
I honestly believe that people convicted of violent crimes should not be allowed to own firearms. Judicial reform will, one hopes, remedy some of the problems with public defender representation, but I'm willing to give that the necessary time to happen. Unfortunately, one cannot snap one's fingers and say, 'Voila!" on such matters. I am in favor of ALL people unfairly convicted, not just blacks, receiving new trials, but the ability to ascertain which of the convicted deserve them is not a perfectible capacity, although such efforts should persevere. Losing the right to own a firearm due to one's irresponsible or malevolent actions is NOT like receiving the death penalty, in fact, for one's future victims who are now safer, it is like receiving a reprieve. But actions MUST be the determinant as to whether rights can be exercised responsibly, and our judicial system, as imperfect as it is (and ANY human institution must be) must make that determination in the case of crim!
inal allegations. Or you can try the legal systems of Russia or China, or go live on your own island like Robinson Crusoe, and shoot at threatening palm trees.
>> >
>> >Moreover, all firearms regulations preceding WWI at state levels were passed by Democrats in Democrat controlled districts and were written specifically to make it far more difficult for a black person to own and carry firearms than a white person.
>> >
>> Those were the infamous southern Dixiecrats; their ideological bent has been taken over by 'law and order', anti-immigration, anti-civil rights Republicans, who believe that many blacks cannot afford firearms due to fiscal inequities (some of them have
>pushed for 'Saturday Night Special' laws to get cheap, affordable firearms off the market).
>
>This is untrue, unless you count Chicago, Detroit, New York City, and Boston as part of the South. I had not realized you were so deficient of geographical knowledge....
>
It is true of the dixiecrats turned republicans; urban northern areas possess their own problems with a more geographically localized, gang-ridden, tribal kind of bigotry - on all sides. My statement remains true, if incomplete. It is said that white bigots in the south don't care how close blacks come, as long as they don't go to far, and white bigots in the north don't care how far blacks go, as long as they don't come too close.
>
>> Their area is the south, where Republicans have replaced Dixiecrats, in large part because of democratic support for civil rights during the Kennedy and Johnson administrations; since then, Republican candidates for Prez have used the 'law and order' ph
>rase as a code, from Reagan to Bush Senior (remember Willie Horton?).
>> >>
>> >> Still trying after the ban, ayy, Mikey?
>> >
>> >a) there is no ban
>> >b) there is no ban, and
>> >c) there is no ban
>> >Additionally, you might note that it was you who was bounced, not me.
>> >
>> I was not bounced, and Max More himself announced such a ban. It is not a matter of what is said, but what is done (or at least has been attempted); the perverse redirection of this list towards the private obsession of yourself and a few of your droog
>ies.
>
>Max banned it for a set period. There is at present, no ban. Do you get it yet. And YES, you were indeed bounced, for a month, by Greg Burch. As always, a liberal trying to revise history.
>
I was bounced during the first flare-up; you barely managed to avoid it yourself. I was NOT bounced during the second one, at the end of which the ban was instituted. My reading of Max More's pronouncement set NO periodicity on the ban (I could check the archives for it, or maybe he will step forward).
------------------------------------------------------------
Looking for a book? Want a deal? No problem AddALL!
http://www.addall.com compares book price at 41 online stores.
This archive was generated by hypermail 2.1.5
: Sat Nov 02 2002 - 08:08:13 MST