BLAST FROM THE PAST- WHAT PROGRESSIVES MUST LEARN: STAND TOGETHER, OR FALL APART. (UPDATED)

 

There is one thing, probably more than anything else, that has held Back Progressives from Achieving Electoral Success regularly. Care to Guess what it is?  It is an Internal, Self- Inflicted Mindset that Conservatives, especially Far-Right Hate Groups and the Fascist Majority that runs the GOP, have exploited come Election Time.

IT IS THE FAILURE OF PROGRESSIVES AND LIBERALS TO STAND TOGETHER.  TO OFTEN, GROUPS THAT PROCLAIM THEMSELVES AS PROGRESSIVE, EXIST AS ONE OR TWO ISSUE GROUPS.  THE REASONING THAT LED TO CREATING AND ORGANIZING OTHER LIKE- MINDED INDIVIDUALS TO PASS LEGISLATION AND ELECT SYMPATHETIC CANDIDATES, IS NOT CARRIED OVER INTO OTHER AREAS.

It is Astonishing to Listen to a "PROGRESSIVE VOTER", Who sees an Injustice and Wants to Affect a Change in the Law to Remedy this Iniquity, Refusing to use the Same Thought Process if it Deals with an Issue That Doesn't Appeal to Them Directly.

Unfortunately, this Lack of a Consistent Line of Moral Guidelines that are NOT UNIVERSAL IN NATURE, SETS PROGRESSIVES AGAINST ONE ANOTHER, AND BREEDS RESENTMENT THAT LEADS TO ELECTORAL FAILURE.

I have heard the Argument that concludes with the-  "...their not all the same. Social , Economic, and Other Domestic Agenda Issues Deal with Different Problems, and Need Different Solutions."

That may be, but it Doesn't Explain or Solve the UNDERLYING PROBLEM THEY ALL HAVE IN COMMON; INEQUALITY UNDER THE LAW, WHETHER IT IS...

-  UNFAIR LABOR OR WAGE PRACTICES.

- TAX LAWS THAT BENEFIT THE WEALTHY

AT THE EXPENSE OF THE MIDDLE CLASS.

-  ELIGIBILITY AND AVAILABILITY FOR 

GOVERNMENT FUNDS TO ADDRESS HARDSHIP,

IN ALL ITS FORMS.

-  FAILURE TO GIVE ALL COMPETENT

ADULTS THE OPPORTUNITY TO ENTER

INTO A LEGAL MARRIAGE CONTRACT.

-  ENSURING EQUAL TREATMENT IN A COURT OF 

LAW, WHERE THE SIZE OF YOUR WALLET DOESN'T 

= THE AMOUNT OF JUSTICE YOU'LL RECEIVE.

- IGNORING THE ATTEMPTS BY A CORRUPT/INCOMPETENT

JUDICIARY ATTEMPTING TO INSTALL FAITH-BASED MORALITY

INTO PUBLIC POLICY, DESTROYING THE CONSTITUTIONAL 

FOUNDATION THAT CREATED THE U.S. LEGAL SYSTEM.

WHO IS THE WINNER WHEN THIS HAPPENS?  

Why don't we ask the Citizens of RUSSIA, IRAN, CHINA

AND OTHER REPRESSIVE REGIMES.

LOGIC. FAULTY LOGIC, AND GETTING ELECTED: THE FALLACY OF ASSUMING THE CONSEQUENCE INCLUDES GUN CONTROL. (UPDATE)

 

This post could just as easily have been published on A PAGE DEALING WITH ELECTION ISSUES. However, it does deal with Invalid and Faulty Arguments that violate the rules of Logic and Critical Thinking. So I have placed it here.

How many of us have run into the line of reasoning, that the following are examples of;

-  "IF WE PASS GUN CONTROL LAWS, THEN ONLY THE CROOKS WILL HAVE GUNS."

-  " ALLOWING IMMIGRANTS INTO THE U.S. WILL RESULT IN DISEASES LIKE EBOLA SPREADING ACROSS THE COUNTRY."

"GAY MARRIAGE BEING MADE LEGAL WILL RESULT IN AN INCREASE OF CHILD MOLESTATION AND BESTIALITY BECAUSE NO SEXUAL ACTS ARE AGAINST THE LAW ANYMORE."

These are all examples of:

THE FALLACY OF ASSUMING THE CONSEQUENCE-  WHEN YOU ASSERT THAT A GIVEN ACTION WILL AUTOMATICALLY RESULT IN A SPECIFIC CONSEQUENCE.  THIS IS DONE WITHOUT ANY REASONABLE EXPECTATION THAT ONE NECESSARILY FOLLOWS THE OTHER.

Problem #1-  It Assumes Facts, not in Evidence-  There is no foundation for one to conclude that creating guidelines for Gun Ownership, Entry into the U.S. for Foreign Nationals, or Legalizing Same Sex Marriage, would result in the predictions claimed in the above examples coming true.

-  Gun Control does NOT MEAN GUN ELIMINATION.  Legal ownership is not prevented by law.

-  Medical Evaluations are part of gaining Legal Refugee Status. Further,  There is no evidence that foreign nationals are any more or less likely to be infected with any contagious diseases that are found inside the U.S.

-  The Legalization of Gender Identical Marriage does not create blanket amnesty for anyone engaging in sexual acts already prohibited by law. 

Problem #2-  Claiming a Causal Relationship, where one doesn't exist.

-  Many Laws on the Books inside the U.S. allow all Americans to earn or receive licenses required to legally own and/or operate certain Mechanical Devices such as Vehicles, Construction Equipment , Medical Diagnostic Tools etc. Requiring someone to have the Knowledge, Ability and Mental Capacity to operate such things are not considered intrusions into Individual Rights and Freedoms.  There is no precedent that Firearms would be treated any differently.

THIS ALSO IGNORES CONSTITUTIONAL PROTECTIONS THAT INCLUDE PERSONAL PROPERTY RIGHTS, WHICH IS WHERE LAWS ON INDIVIDUALS OWNING FIREARMS PROPERLY BELONGS.

-  The Idea that Citizens of other Countries are not properly Immunized compared to American Citizens is not always true, especially if we are speaking about those who are from Nations in North, South or Central America.  It is an amazing comparison, considering the number of irrational exemptions inside the U.S., that allow a parent not to have a child immunized.

-  That the idea of Same- Sex Married couples being so different from Hetero-Sexual ones, that legalization of such unions will cause a complete breakdown of Sexual Mores within the U.S. is without any rational foundation. There is not one shred of credible evidence that such a result is even possible. 

I guess it leaves us with Two basic types of Candidates for elected office:

The Candidate who wants you to fear the opposition before you vote, or

The Candidate who wants you to understand the opposition before you vote.

This U.S. Supreme Court isn't about Intellectually and Reasonably applying Constitutional Law to todays Social and Political Issues. It's about finding any excuse to install Fascism in the U.S. PART 1. (UPDATE)

 

THE RULING STRIKING DOWN NEW YORKS LAW ABOUT THE PUBLIC CARRYING OF FIREARMS BY INDIVIDUAL CITIZENS, WAS "JUSTIFIED" BY THE OPINION OFFERED BY JUSTICE THOMAS, WHO WROTE THE FOLLOWING FOR THE MAJORITY:

"We know of no other constitutional right that an individual may exercise only after demonstrating to government officers some special need."

Number one is the fact that he is interpreting the history of CONSTITUTIONAL LAW INCORRECTLY.

All Constitutional Rights, are considered to be ABSOLUTE, in the form they are presented in the Document. Government,(COURTS), PLACE AND IMPLEMENT GUIDELINES AND LIMITATIONS ON SUCH BEHAVIORS. NO ONE WAS REQUIRED TO ASK PERMISSION IN EVERY SINGLE CASE THAT CAME UP INVOLVING THE BILL OF RIGHTS. THE COURTS STEPPED IN WHEN INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS WERE MISUSING OR ABUSING A PARTICULAR RIGHT. Citizens did not have to prove that they had the "RIGHT" TO ANYTHING, COURTS HAD TO STEP IN AND SAY "NO YOU DO NOT," OR "YES, YOU DO."

THAT IS HOW WE GET "CONTINGENT" RIGHTS.

You need to stop thinking of ROBERTS, THOMAS, ALITO, KAVANAUGH, GORSUCH, AND BARRET AS LEGAL SCHOLARS OR PROFESSIONALS. THEY ARE NOT. THEY ARE BOUGHT AND PAID FASCIST STOOGES WORKING FOR THE GOP. THEIR GOAL? TO UNDERMIND OUR CONSTITUTIONAL REPUBLIC FOR A FINAL TAKEOVER LED BY THE "NEW" REPUBLICAN PARTY, WHO SEE STALINIST RUSSIA/HITLERS GERMANY AS THE MODEL FOR THE NEW U.S.

THE CONSTITUTION IS MORE THAN JUST THE 2ND AMENDMENT: ABSOLUTE RIGHTS AND CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

 

In a recent article Titled; "BY DEFINITION: GUN CONTROL, AND THE 2ND AMENDMENT," I began an analysis of the Meaning contained in the TERMINOLOGY used in the 2ND AMENDMENT. To complement that line of reasoning, I have decided to use this post to look at other parts of the BILL OF RIGHTS, and see if that can aid us in properly interpreting the true meaning contained in the 2nd Amendment. 

To do this, we must understand the following: THAT THE BILL OF RIGHTS CONTAINS TWO DIFFERENT CATEGORIES OF RIGHTS THAT WERE CREATED AND DRAFTED BY THE FOUNDING FATHERS, AND INTERPRETED BY SUBSEQUENT JUDICIAL REVIEW AND PRECEDENT.

ABSOLUTE RIGHTS- RIGHTS THAT CAN NEVER BE LOST OR TAKEN AWAY BY THE STATE. (ALTHOUGH THEY MAY BE GIVEN UP VOLUNTARILY.) ALSO, THEY ARE NOT DEPENDENT UPON SPECIFIC EVENTS OR CIRCUMSTANCES.

 

For Example:

   Amendment VI- INCLUDES SEVERAL EXAMPLES OF ABSOLUTE RIGHTS.

  "All criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the state and district wherein the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the assistance of counsel for his defense."

    

CONTINGENT RIGHTS- RIGHTS EXTENDED TO THE INDIVIDUAL THAT ARE SUBJECT TO POSSIBLE LIMITATION OR TERMINATION DEPENDING ON THE INDIVIDUALS ACTIONS AND/OR INTENT IN CERTAIN SITUATIONS OR SPECIFIC EVENTS. 

    For Example:                                                                                                                        

The First Amendment reads as follows: 

""Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."

FROM THE FIRST AMENDMENT, WE FIND THE FOLLOWING CONTINGENT RIGHTS.

FREEDOM OF SPEECH-  DOES NOT ALLOW US TO SAY ANYTHING 

WE WANT, ANYWHERE WE WANT, AT ANY TIME, AND USE "FREEDOM

OF SPEECH" AS A UNIVERSAL DEFENSE TO AVOID SANCTIONS OR 

PUNISHMENTS.

FREEDOM OF RELIGION-  DOES NOT ALLOW POLYGAMY, PHYSICAL

ABUSE, CONSUMPTION OF CERTAIN DRUGS, DISCRIMINATION IN THE

EMPLOYMENT SECTOR...AMONG OTHER THINGS, TO BE COVERED 

BY CONSTITUTIONAL LAW.

FOR OUR PURPOSES, WHEN DISCUSSING THE 2ND AMENDMENT, CONSIDER THE FOLLOWING:

THAT EVEN IF YOU HOLD TO THE OPINION THAT EVERY CITIZEN HAS A "RIGHT" TO OWN OR POSSESS A GUN OR FIREARM, IT DOES NOT FOLLOW THAT THE STATE CAN NOT SET GUIDELINES OR RULES TO:

-  RESTRICT THE FIREPOWER OR DESTRUCTIVE POTENTIAL OF EACH FIREARM.

-  SET A MINIMAL STANDARD OF INTELLECTUAL AND/OR

MENTAL COMPETENCE OF THOSE OBTAINING SUCH A WEAPON.

-  MAINTAIN STANDARDS OF MORAL CHARACTER (CRIMINAL) OF THE INDIVIDUAL.

BEFORE THEY ARE ALLOWED TO LEGALLY POSSESS A GUN.

HISTORY HAS SHOWN US THAT UNRESTRICTED SPEECH AND UNINHIBITED RELIGIOUS PRACTICES, IN THE HANDS OF UNSCRUPULOUS AND SELF- CENTERED INDIVIDUALS AND GROUPS, CAN CAUSE SUCH DESTRUCTION THAT IT COULD CONTRIBUTE TO THE DESTRUCTION OF WHOLE SOCIETIES AND CULTURES. THIS IS WHY EVEN OUR MOST REVERED "RIGHTS" MUST BE CAREFULLY EXAMINED FOR POSSIBLE ABUSE.

SO, SHOULD WE CONTINUE TO SUBJECT EVERY AMERICAN TO A LEGAL SYSTEM WHERE THE "RIGHTS" OF FREE SPEECH AND FREEDOM OF RELIGION ARE MORE RESTRICTIVE THAN THE "RIGHT"  TO POSSESS AN AUTOMATIC WEAPON WITH AN AMMO CLIP THAT COULD KILL SCORES OF PEOPLE IN ONE OR TWO MINUTES?

To find a reasonable solution or compromise,

we must ask the following questions.

Question #1-  Do we Agree that there are certain Individuals and/or Groups

that SHOULD NOT BE ALLOWED ACCESS TO FIREARMS. If so, who and why?

Question #2-   Have Previous Judicial Decisions and Legislative Actions set

 PRECEDENTS as to what ACTIONS ARE PERMISSIBLE and COVERED BY THE

"BILL OF RIGHTS" SET FORTH IN THE U.S. CONSTITUTION?

WHAT MANY AMERICANS SEEM TO FORGET IS THE FOLLOWING:

YES, IT SEEKS TO PREVENT UNREASONABLE GOVERNMENT

INTRUSION INTO THE LIVES OF ITS CITIZENS, BUT IT ALSO...

...CREATES GUIDELINES THAT THOSE SAME CITIZENS DO NOT USE

THE "BILL OF RIGHTS" TO ABUSE AND HARM OTHER CITIZENS WITH

UNREASONABLE, MALICIOUS, AND UNJUSTIFIED WORDS AND ACTIONS.

Question #3- CAN ANY PROPOSED LIMITATIONS ON THE 2ND

AMENDMENT BE...

-   ...UNACHIEVABLE, OR WILL NOT

   PRODUCE DESIRABLE RESULTS?

-  ...AN UNREASONABLE BURDEN 

   ON THE LAW-ABIDING GUN OWNER?

-  ...A PUNISHMENT ON HONEST GUN OWNERS, INSTEAD OF

   REINFORCING THE RESPONSIBLE DECISIONS THEY

   ALREADY MAKE?