emilynghiem
Constitutionalist / Universalist
- Jan 21, 2010
- 23,669
- 4,181
Dear Fellow Democrats and Republicans:
If you are concerned about refocusing the debate on gun control (which isn't really about slavery or hunting and whether the President can shoot skeet),
here are some points I used to successfully explain the conservative viewpoint
to a fellow liberal Democrat who understood after I explained it this way:
(1a) why not ban assault weapons all together, who needs those?
(1b) I explained that for people along the border, and in the case of the LA riots, people who visibly displayed such arms for defense prevented violence by deterring attackers. I also agreed the point is NOT to wait until there is a mass mob, but to try to deter before that point. see 2 below:
(2a) isn't it lawless for officers or military to refuse to follow laws then say they are defending the Constitution
(2b) I cited cases where military or police have put the Constitution first and refused to enforce laws that would negate or conflict with their duty; that the point is NOT to put officers in a conflicted situation with contradictory orders. So even more so, we need to make decisions by consensus to prevent putting people in this compromising situation. Also the best gun control IS to have everyone take the same training and oath as a military or police officer, so the same "regulations" and procedures that apply to police apply to all citizens with firearms.
(3a) why are the conservatives so opposed to the regulations
(3b) no one is opposed to enforcing the current background checks, but the idea of having federal powers to make decisions about one's medical conditions opens the door to abuse. I cited a friend who was falsely declared mentally incompetent *without any examination by a doctor* for the purpose of stripping her rights to petition in court, in order to "legally justify" seizing, selling and demolishing her property without defense. So that system cannot be trusted to be enforced fairly, especially on the federal level that is too big and bureaucratic, but it better done by localized authority to prevent abuse. That is why so many conservative Republicans push for localized state jurisdiction and oppose relying on federal govt which makes it too big and burdensome, and harder to check and balance democratically.
I explained that the objection is to taking away someone's rights without them committing a crime and going through due process, where they cannot enjoy the same rights they should have as citizens who have NOT committed crimes. It is pre-emptively judging them. He understood this.
Other things we talked about where we agreed:
A. promoting equal education, enforcement and training in Constitutional laws and defense, where everyone takes the same oath and training as the best form of defense and gun control
B. promoting scientific proof and methods of spiritual diagnosis, treatment and healing of mental disorders and criminal addictions and illness; so if the focus is on medical treatment and detention of dangerous conditions rather than fear of prosecution and punishment then people would not be running from authorities who need medical help and supervision. So actually it tied in with health care reform that could be funded by cleaning up the criminal justice system, turning those resources into medical facilities and treatment centers, and solving both problems at once.
I will add a poll below, asking all of you to try working out these issues with someone from the opposing view. Please indicate which concepts helped to resolve the conflicts or write in your own. Thank you! Please share your successes with others, not just your failures.
If you are concerned about refocusing the debate on gun control (which isn't really about slavery or hunting and whether the President can shoot skeet),
here are some points I used to successfully explain the conservative viewpoint
to a fellow liberal Democrat who understood after I explained it this way:
(1a) why not ban assault weapons all together, who needs those?
(1b) I explained that for people along the border, and in the case of the LA riots, people who visibly displayed such arms for defense prevented violence by deterring attackers. I also agreed the point is NOT to wait until there is a mass mob, but to try to deter before that point. see 2 below:
(2a) isn't it lawless for officers or military to refuse to follow laws then say they are defending the Constitution
(2b) I cited cases where military or police have put the Constitution first and refused to enforce laws that would negate or conflict with their duty; that the point is NOT to put officers in a conflicted situation with contradictory orders. So even more so, we need to make decisions by consensus to prevent putting people in this compromising situation. Also the best gun control IS to have everyone take the same training and oath as a military or police officer, so the same "regulations" and procedures that apply to police apply to all citizens with firearms.
(3a) why are the conservatives so opposed to the regulations
(3b) no one is opposed to enforcing the current background checks, but the idea of having federal powers to make decisions about one's medical conditions opens the door to abuse. I cited a friend who was falsely declared mentally incompetent *without any examination by a doctor* for the purpose of stripping her rights to petition in court, in order to "legally justify" seizing, selling and demolishing her property without defense. So that system cannot be trusted to be enforced fairly, especially on the federal level that is too big and bureaucratic, but it better done by localized authority to prevent abuse. That is why so many conservative Republicans push for localized state jurisdiction and oppose relying on federal govt which makes it too big and burdensome, and harder to check and balance democratically.
I explained that the objection is to taking away someone's rights without them committing a crime and going through due process, where they cannot enjoy the same rights they should have as citizens who have NOT committed crimes. It is pre-emptively judging them. He understood this.
Other things we talked about where we agreed:
A. promoting equal education, enforcement and training in Constitutional laws and defense, where everyone takes the same oath and training as the best form of defense and gun control
B. promoting scientific proof and methods of spiritual diagnosis, treatment and healing of mental disorders and criminal addictions and illness; so if the focus is on medical treatment and detention of dangerous conditions rather than fear of prosecution and punishment then people would not be running from authorities who need medical help and supervision. So actually it tied in with health care reform that could be funded by cleaning up the criminal justice system, turning those resources into medical facilities and treatment centers, and solving both problems at once.
I will add a poll below, asking all of you to try working out these issues with someone from the opposing view. Please indicate which concepts helped to resolve the conflicts or write in your own. Thank you! Please share your successes with others, not just your failures.
Last edited:
