The Thread of Democrats

[rainbow]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

Mind-boggling logic our 42 has.

He's right, though. In Italy Mussolini made trains run on time again. Hitler made Germany great again. Autobahn. Volkswagen. The armaments industry played a huge role in regaining full employment. Those black SS uniforms looked totally smashing. And where would NASA be today had Wernher von Braun not developed the V2?

Hitler was a Socialist, so he's talking about those right of the Nazi Party. Mussolini too was an avid Socialist.

[Hermit]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

Mind-boggling logic our 42 has.

He's right, though. In Italy Mussolini made trains run on time again. Hitler made Germany great again. Autobahn. Volkswagen. The armaments industry played a huge role in regaining full employment. Those black SS uniforms looked totally smashing. And where would NASA be today had Wernher von Braun not developed the V2?

Hitler was a Socialist, so he's talking about those right of the Nazi Party. Mussolini too was an avid Socialist.

Ah yes. Of course. Like dear leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-un, is a democrat.

[rainbow]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

Mind-boggling logic our 42 has.

He's right, though. In Italy Mussolini made trains run on time again. Hitler made Germany great again. Autobahn. Volkswagen. The armaments industry played a huge role in regaining full employment. Those black SS uniforms looked totally smashing. And where would NASA be today had Wernher von Braun not developed the V2?

Hitler was a Socialist, so he's talking about those right of the Nazi Party. Mussolini too was an avid Socialist.

Ah yes. Of course. Like dear leader of the Democratic People's Republic of Korea, Kim Jong-un, is a democrat.

Says so in the title, so must be true.

[Forty Two]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

Mind-boggling logic our 42 has.

What did I say in regards to the extreme right wing with which you disagree?

[Forty Two]

the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Wrong on both counts.

The Supreme Court was? Gotcha, Ozzie.

The connection between the right to bear arms and the militia cannot be more explicit than the Second Amendment makes it. It actually mentions that connection before it mentions the right: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You ignored that, wilfully, I suspect.

On the other hand, the Second Amendment makes no mention of lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, whatsoever. You invented that, wilfully, I suspect.

Yes, the purpose clause does not limit the right.

Go fuck yourself, man, with this willfully invented crap. I willfully quoted the Supreme Court. Do you guys read?

The Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

US Supreme Court, DC v Heller Pp. 2–53.

The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms

. Pp. 2–22. https://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html

Here - let me do some suspecting for you and some others who like to accuse people of lies and willful misrepresentations -- I suspect you LIED and you're WILFULLY MISREPRESENTING the law. - liar. See? Get it?

I have a quote from a landmark SCOTUS decision. You have gas coming out of your ass. Shove your accusation of willful inventions up there.

[Tero]

You are just quoting Heller. This is a very recent supreme court. It has almost no connection to interpreting the law in the 1700s. The state constitutions mention the "bear arms" phrase and can be of some guidance.

[Cunt]

What will banning achieve? How many are out there now?

There are many who wish and dream of a better world with less guns, but laws aren't the way to achieve the improvement.

Make a law banning some guns, and many lawful gun owners will abide by it.

Leaving the unlawful with guns.

The only way to remove the guns of the unlawful, will be with something other than a law.

Anyone want to guess how that can be done?

Personally, I think the only way, is having lots of sweet, caring citizens armed with guns, and leave it to them to shoot the bad guys. Of course, the best way to achieve that is to leave those citizens lawfully armed...

[Forty Two]

You are just quoting Heller. This is a very recent supreme court. It has almost no connection to interpreting the law in the 1700s. The state constitutions mention the "bear arms" phrase and can be of some guidance.

I was responding to the bullshit allegation that I was willfully inventing something. And, the SCOTUS opinion refers to source material from the 1700s. It's wonderful that you disagree. But just declaring it, without any actual supporting argument with source material doesn't really represent a persuasive argument. If you think that the 2nd amendment originally meant the right to keep arms while in an organized militia organization run by State government, then by all means - demonstrate it.

[Tero]

The Scotus is a pro NRA Scotus. They've been paid for. Kavanaugh is the anti-abortion judge. He's been paid for. Forget the 1700s. Other than "evil feds", that was from then as well.

[JimC]

I agree with 42 here. The existence of the "militia purpose" bit does not logically mean that the right to be armed is only due to that purpose - it exists in itself.

That being said, it is also fairly evident that the whole thing was in an 18th century context, and that the current reality is that the almost total saturation of American society with modern weapons is a grave burden to your health as a society, but one there seems to be no return from.

[Seabass]

I agree with 42 here. The existence of the "militia purpose" bit does not logically mean that the right to be armed is only due to that purpose - it exists in itself.

That being said, it is also fairly evident that the whole thing was in an 18th century context, and that the current reality is that the almost total saturation of American society with modern weapons is a grave burden to your health as a society, but one there seems to be no return from.

If only the founders had written "muskets" instead of "arms"...

[Brian Peacock]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

I wouldn't put it that way, but how about - it's intellectually bankrupt, usually racist, authoritarian in its politics, distasteful, simplistic, often hateful, and often collectivist or statist in philosophy. No redeeming qualities. Good enough?

Sure, I'll accept that you wouldn't put that way, but you're reply amounts to exactly that - even given what appeared to be the hedging deployment of a conditional third-person singular tenseless indicative.

What this little strand point to, at least to me, is the problem of definition, which can throw up an implication that the status of a person, group, or ideology is determined by the definition of the terms applied to them, rather than the terms applied representing a token description of who and what they are and/or stand for. In other words, and implication that uttering the term 'extreme right' is the only qualification one need to justify its own application. The problem of definition is illuminated not in simply declaring that the extreme right are intellectually bankrupt, or authoritarian, or whatever, but in trying to articulate the conditions which, when met, qualify a political ideal or philosophy as intellectually bankrupt or authoritarian etc, and therefore legitimately 'extreme right'.

As you've noted already, the term 'extreme' might be considered a bit of a giveaway in itself, but it can also be misunderstood in relation to someone's views or just misapplied and therefore end up meaning relatively little - though I don't think this can be really be said of the Proud Boys.

With that in mind, discussion of the 'extreme right' must entail some discussion of the bounds or borders of the term, of what constitutes the intellectual bankruptcy, authoritarianism, or collectivist nature of the kind of right-wing politics that tends towards the extreme, or, indeed, the kind of politics that's arrived there already. Yet that should not be the extent of discussion. All too often we get bogged down in bickering over the definition, and who is and isn't covered by it, and all the time we're engaged in that, and only that, we're not really examining or evaluating the content of a person, group's or ideologies vies and forming a judgment about them.

For example, it's relatively easy to assert that Mr Whatnot is an extremist, or dispute the fact that he is, but what counts it looking at what Mr Whatnot is saying and doing and, where necessary, forming some judgment about his political ideals regardless of the definition of 'extreme views', and regardless even of whatever mellow-sounding or woolly rhetoric they might be couched in or the strength of other's disapprobation of them or Mr Whatnot personally.

We have a discussion where this can take place, and is taking place. A thread where not only where the bounds of the far- and extreme-right's views are being located and discussed, but where we can examine what far- and extreme-right-wingers are actually saying and doing. Perhaps we should continue that discussion over there? "Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc

[Svartalf]

the Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.

Wrong on both counts.

The connection between the right to bear arms and the militia cannot be more explicit than the Second Amendment makes it. It actually mentions that connection before it mentions the right: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." You ignored that, wilfully, I suspect.

On the other hand, the Second Amendment makes no mention of lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home, whatsoever. You invented that, wilfully, I suspect.

Dor once I have to agree with 42. Citizens are to have weapons in case they are shanghaied into a militia, but they are allowed to be armed without the existence of said militia, just in case.

[laklak]

Yeah I don't get the contention that it requires militia membership. If I said "Biscuits and gravy being necessary for a decent breakfast, the right of the people to buy and keep sausage shall not be abridged", that doesn't imply that I can only buy sausage if I'm making biscuits and gravy. What if I want a sausage biscuit?

If sausage biscuits are outlawed, only outlaws will have sausage biscuits.

[Forty Two]

So the extreme right doesn't just have bad elements, it is bad elements?

I wouldn't put it that way, but how about - it's intellectually bankrupt, usually racist, authoritarian in its politics, distasteful, simplistic, often hateful, and often collectivist or statist in philosophy. No redeeming qualities. Good enough?

Sure, I'll accept that you wouldn't put that way, but you're reply amounts to exactly that - even given what appeared to be the hedging deployment of a conditional third-person singular tenseless indicative.

All these imagined hedgings are getting ridiculous. My only qualification was to define extreme right wing. Unless someone disagrees with my definition, we are in agreement. None of them is good. If someone wants to take issue with the definition of the group, then that's fine too. They can define it.

What this little strand point to, at least to me, is the problem of definition, which can throw up an implication that the status of a person, group, or ideology is determined by the definition of the terms applied to them, rather than the terms applied representing a token description of who and what they are and/or stand for. In other words, and implication that uttering the term 'extreme right' is the only qualification one need to justify its own application. The problem of definition is illuminated not in simply declaring that the extreme right are intellectually bankrupt, or authoritarian, or whatever, but in trying to articulate the conditions which, when met, qualify a political ideal or philosophy as intellectually bankrupt or authoritarian etc, and therefore legitimately 'extreme right'.

I named examples - KKK, Nazi, Fascist -- that's the extreme right. There may be other examples. If a person is labeled a Nazi, they're not bad because the label is applied to them. They are bad because they meet the definition of Nazi. Nazism is an extreme right political philosophy. Of course the definitions matter. When someone calls a person a Nazi because they, say, support the pro-Life cause, then I think they're mislabeling the person (unless the person otherwise is a Nazi, of course). Being pro-Life is right wing. It's not "extreme right wing." Plenty of good people are pro-Life, IMO. Although I know there are plenty of people who would disagree. They're free to define good and bad how they like. Nothing is either good or bad, but that thinking makes it so. It's a value judgment.

As you've noted already, the term 'extreme' might be considered a bit of a giveaway in itself, but it can also be misunderstood in relation to someone's views or just misapplied and therefore end up meaning relatively little - though I don't think this can be really be said of the Proud Boys.

I set forth what I consider "extreme right." That's all I can do. So far, nobody has suggested it's an unfair definition.

With that in mind, discussion of the 'extreme right' must entail some discussion of the bounds or borders of the term, of what constitutes the intellectual bankruptcy, authoritarianism, or collectivist nature of the kind of right-wing politics that tends towards the extreme, or, indeed, the kind of politics that's arrived there already. Yet that should not be the extent of discussion. All too often we get bogged down in bickering over the definition, and who is and isn't covered by it, and all the time we're engaged in that, and only that, we're not really examining or evaluating the content of a person, group's or ideologies vies and forming a judgment about them.

I did that.

And, if someone is going to ask a rather pointless question of "are there good people on the extreme right?" then naturally one has to define the extreme right in order to give it a yes or no answer. It's also important to recognize some issue with the term "good people." Often, the notion that people are generally neither all good and all bad is lost, and even where people may be, say, a racist, they may well be at heart a good person or at least in some ways may be a good person. Some very very good people have done some very very bad things. Watch this clip. It's short - the quip I like starts at about 1:50

For example, it's relatively easy to assert that Mr Whatnot is an extremist, or dispute the fact that he is, but what counts it looking at what Mr Whatnot is saying and doing and, where necessary, forming some judgment about his political ideals regardless of the definition of 'extreme views', and regardless even of whatever mellow-sounding or woolly rhetoric they might be couched in or the strength of other's disapprobation of them or Mr Whatnot personally.

Yes, key point. And, notice there you are directing the question right at Mr. Whatnot. Not an entire category of people with a mushy definition on which minds reasonably differ. At least when looking at Mr. Whatnot, we can assess his behavior. And, then, even then, I direct you to the Richard Gere quip above - is Mr. Whatnot a "good person" or a "bad person?" Or has he done, said, or thought good things and bad things? If he mistakenly thinks a bad thing is good, is he bad or good? Both? Neither?

We have a discussion where this can take place, and is taking place. A thread where not only where the bounds of the far- and extreme-right's views are being located and discussed, but where we can examine what far- and extreme-right-wingers are actually saying and doing. Perhaps we should continue that discussion over there? "Alt-right" Still Parading Ignorance, Stupidity, Malice, Etc

Maybe - but, let's not pretend the question on this thread was posed with an honest intent to spark a discussion. It was posed to trap someone into suggesting that far right extremists are really just good people. Certain folks here are out to go "aha! you think they're good!" That's why I answered the question by first defining what I meant -- I think it's pretty safe to say that people who, these days, ascribe to the KKK or Naziism --- it's pretty darn unlikely that they are at heart honestly trying to be good.

I won't go so far, however, as to say that never was the case. I have little doubt that many people in history joined the KKK, for example, thinking they were good and fighting evil by doing so. Does that make them good? Bad? Both? Again - this is a value judgment. Is a child who is brought up in a KKK family "bad" because of how he was raised? Maybe at some point, but when?

This whole moralistic discussion of good and evil is very non-productive, generally. But I find it very funny when certain folks who have in other contexts denied the very existence of morality and good/evil as concepts, have no trouble with those concepts in a discussion like this.