Bye bye gun control - Page 2

Even if it is the laziest, most trite hyperbole in the history of the gun control debate, that does not diminish its validity. Good to hear that "machine gun" ownership is restricted, but where in the second amendment do they make the distinction between hand guns, semi's, machine guns, or my lazy trite hyperbole of an atomic bomb?

Glad to hear all your enthousiasm for the constitution, and rightfully so, but it's obviously open to interpretation and is more often than not interpreted in a political way (which is clearly demonstrated by the frequent 4 vs. 5 votes on the supreme court).

Switch any 2 of the conservative judges for any 2 liberal judges, and I'll assure you that just about any gun control legislation passes the supreme court. Hell, it may even pass with today's judges.

My point is, it's a political debate: do we or don't we want stricter gun control? The second amendment may carry a lot of weight when testing the resulting legislation, but it should not be part of the underlying debate.

Actually, it does. NO ONE, save a very extreme few, are making your trite hyperbole of an argument.


News flash... GUN OWNERSHIP itself is restricted, all the way down to bolt action 22 rifles. Look at the tens of thousands of laws already on the books regarding guns and gun ownership. Those rights were lost long, long ago. The real goal of a good number on the left is not keeping guns from criminals, but rather total disarmament of the US population. THAT, my friend, is an abridgement of the Second Amendment.

BTW... did you not know that machine guns are restricted? What do you really know about gun ownership in the States? As far as where things are listed, where are TVs, radios, and the internet listed with rights of the press? Does that mean that freedom of the press does not extend past the actual Gutenberg?

See how nice that works?


Then why have enumerated limits on government or a Constitution at all? If it does not mean what it says, but somehow continually says what is not there, why have the damn thing at all? It's time to disband the SCOTUS, because that redundant political work could be handled by the Congress.


Bullshit. This is a SCOTUS case, testing a Constitutional principle and interpretation. The stakes are much higher than some fscking public opinion poll regarding the issue. This is about far more than a political debate. Just because the people do or do not want more gun control has little to do with the Constitutionality of gun control. This is why we have the document... and do not abridge some rights based on political winds. Yes, there will be a political debate to match the case, but it severely cheapens our system to make this case a purely political one. But hey, agenda (IANSA, UN, VPC) at all costs, right?

All I did was ask a question. Oh dear me. The conclusions people jump to these days without evidence, for convenence sake is staggering. Asking questions today can cause extreme reactions, both in real life where you might get tasered and arrested (in that order), or shouted down on a message board. Wars even get started on similar kneejerking.

From the wiki entry (not that wiki is necessarily any more "reliable" than snopes.com, for example).

*


The copies distributed to the states, and then ratified by them, had different capitalization and punctuation:


\t”
Both versions are commonly used in official government publications.

*

Inferring:
(1) the people can keep and bear arms within a "well regulated militia", or
(2) the people can simply bear arms, period
(3) both 1 and 2.

As far as I am concerned the US people have the Constitutional right to bear arms. However, I think that when people are convicted of crimes of violence, they forfeit that right.

The question I was asking (once determining that the US people are constitutionally allowed to bear arms), is how will the justices define the word "arms". Today, the choices are significantly greater than the in the era of flintlocks and muskets.

That is what I thought you meant. Funny, I actually think the intent was #1, not #2.

You do realize at the time of the writing that the colonists had just fought a war for independence against an organized militia. Reading like #1 would mean that the Framer's thought they should not have had the right to bear arms outside of government (King George's) oversight. Are we connecting here?

The people holding arms was guaranteed... in addition to the need for an organized militia.

Not "holding." "Keeping" and "Bearing." And the BOR says we have that right because we need that right because "well-regulated" militias are necessary, since standing armies are BAD BAD BAD LOOK WHAT JUST HAPPENED WHEN THERE WAS A STANDING ARMY HERE! OMGWTFBBQ IT WAS TEH SUCK!

It's a good thing we have neither a standing army nor a well-regulated militia now!

No, they fought a war against an Army. The militia was what they formed. It's clear the framers foresaw the need for these militias to be called up, and for people to bring their own weapons when they were. Notice personal protection is not mentioned.

If that is not what the framers were thinking, then perhaps you could explain why the first few words of the amendment exist at all. Or, why doesn't it read some other way?

"OMFGSTFBBQ" and "Teh Suck."

Beautiful, mid.

I try, I try.

Now, I shall try to eat some more turkey, dressing, green bean casserole, pulled pork, and finish it off with some chess pie.

I have also just gotten my first Xmas tree in my adult life and bought my wife JEWELRY. I HATE JEWELRY.

WHAT HAS PO DONE TO ME?!?!

Genial normality is a necessary antidote to PO. Muffinducker.

Most likely.

But dude: CHESS PIE.

That was actually my initial response, caps and all, when I read your post. Then I forgot, because my brain has melted into my stomach.

Mmmmmmmm............ chess pie.............

My little joke used to be: no fruit, no filling, no topping, chess......pie.

EDIT: "used to be" because, are they offering up the chess pie in the bay area? The foodies would run screaming.

I dunno, you tell me... you're the one with the time machine.

Shall I go over the mountains of quotes from the Founders regarding arms?

So what is your contention... that the Framer's did not support armed personal protection? Really?

I'm saying it says what it says. Weren't you the one arguing that we need to interpret the Constitution in an originalist way?

A well organized militia, being necessary to the security of a free state.....

And you're telling me what the that really means is that we all have a right to carry weapons for personal protection...or for any reason we damn well please? No, because if it meant that, it would read:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed..

Now look, I don't think that we're going to see a total ban on guns, probably ever. But from a standpoint of intellectual honesty, the amendment says what it says. And as you know, I'm about as conservative/libertarian as they come. What do you have to say about that?

You're just wrong. And you hate America. And children.

I once saw Robert Bork speak at a think-tank dinner. Someone asked him a question about the viability of the keep and bear arms issue. His response was that it was problematic, since you would essentially end up defending your neighbor's right to own a missile launcher.


I wonder if it would be possible to pass some gang-control legislation in the meantime.

You'll get my gang when you pry it from my cold, dead fingers.

In addition to general intimidation/enforcement duties, my gang is actually a great help around the house. Can't let them do the laundry, though, there's always a big problem sorting the reds and blues.

Don't forget the tremendous economic benefits of gangs to the community. We really should allow the free market to decide in matters like this. To do anything else would be unamerican.

As an aside, a guy down the street from me has a friggin' CANNON that he fires on holidays. At 7:00 am.

For real? Maybe you should get a bigger cannon. Or an F15.

No, wait! Maybe it's a subtle dig at "the canon" and he's chiding you for your overweening regard for dead white men?

Does he fire blanks? Because that might be considered one big ass noisemaker instead. I actually had a music teacher in middle school that owned a miniature cannon that really fired. He used to set it off the in the hallway! The thing was like 6 inches long or so. It looked like a goddamned elf's artillery piece.

Guess things have changed a bit. Today he'd be charged with making terroristic threats, attempted arson, endangering the welfare of children with sensitive hearing...and peanut allergies.

I hate mushrooms and olives too.

You hate the Olive Garden?

That's it, the terrorists have won.

No, if I don't get my steak in the next 10 minutes, then they've won.

http://www.theonion.com/content/node/33298

You're certainly as conservative as they come. Well, almost. That's fair.

Regarding "libertarian", there are "libertarians" from all points on the left-right spectrum (and the same as regards "authoritarians)". Although the classic US definition of "Libertarian" comes from the rightwing perspective, from what you have posted here in the last few years, your preferred variety of conservatism tends to fall more towards the authoritarian point of view.

Perhaps I have missed something, as I haven't read every post you have submitted...

That a certain idea could be written in a clearer form, or that the idea would be written in a different form in our day, is not proof that a more cryptic writing does not share that meaning.

"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." Let's take this apart.

"A well regulated Militia being necessary to the security of a free State" -> This is a statement of fact or opinion. The Bill of Rights enumerates things the state is expressly prohibited from regulating. Facts and opinions are logically impossible to regulate, so this snippet makes no sense alone. The only question left is how it relates to the rest of the amendment.

"The right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." -> This snippet fits the general pattern of the Bill of Rights and would not raise eyebrows if it was the whole of the amendment.

Note the words are not "well organized" as you wrote, but "well regulated". For example:

Here we see Washington using "regulated" to describe not a state of organization or rules but a state of functionality - being in working order - which was another common use of the word. So, "well regulated militia" can be taken to describe individuals who are in a state (e.g. in skills, physique and gear) that allows them to function properly as militiamen. Source

Assuming that was also the meaning in the amendment, it no longer seems cryptic at all. An individual militiaman without the possession of arms not only lacks the gear side of the equation. He is, in practice, unable to carry out regular training with said arms. Like everyone familiar with weapons knows, regular training is necessary to retain a good level of skill.

It seems to me like the first snippet simply serves as the "why" for the body of the amendment, laid out by the second snippet - "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Respectfully, you're wrong. I'm for less government in almost all respects. I think my posts and political positions demonstrate that.

I am not a privacy fanatic though, as I believe that real privacy in this day and age is almost impossible. I also think there are real national security interests (as in..ones that keep us alive) to be considered. This is why I support things like the NSA surveillance program, cameras in public areas and most of the provisions in the USA PATRIOT Act.

Heh.

And I continue typing because I need to post 5 characters or more.

Realizing I will regret the opportunity I'm going to give you to engage in a tryptophan and carbohydrate shock-induced rant: Why, specifically do you not support the NSA program and the PATRIOT Act?

I'd say those positions alone probably swing you out of the libertarian philosophy.

From the posts I've seen, you seem conservative and authoritarian, essentially a conservative statist. So I'd agree with sammi_jo's analysis.

But here's a quick way to check:

World's Shortest: http://www.theadvocates.org/quiz.html

Here's another: http://politicalquiz.net/

These are not quite as objective in their wording and phrasing:

http://www.okcupid.com/politics
http://franz.org/quiz.htm
http://www.politicalcompass.org/

You have watch some of these though. Often they word the questions and answers in a way that don't allow you any out besides the typical "liberal"/"left" or "conservative"/"right" labels used so often today.

Most libertarians don't necessarily view themselves as "conservative" (in today's terms). In fact many align most close with what is called "classical liberalism". They also don't consider themselves "centrist" in the sense that they hold some views consistent with today's "liberals"/"left" and some views consistent withe today's "conservatives"/"right". They typically draw the lines differently:

more freedom or liberty vs. less freedom or liberty
more, larger, more invasive, more powerful state vs. less, smaller, less invasive, less powerful state.

In the furthest "extreme" (extreme by modern American standards, but arguably not so extreme by founding father American standards) there are:

anarchists
minarchists
anarcho-capitalists

In any case, if you choose to adopt this part of the spectrum as your own personal political philosophy, you should choose carefully, because it essentially amounts to choosing to giving up the "right" to control (through government) what others do (short of stopping others from committing violence, force, aggression and coercion against another). If means choosing to support the right of people to do things you don't like.

1) Who said I don't?

2) I don't like the name of the USAPATRIOT Act.

Well done. Thank you and good night.

I'll tell you what I have to say about that:

Great. For all of our categories, very few follow a strict party/ideo line. And thank God for that.

I have never said anything re: and unrestricted right to carry. Again, the over-the-top "neighbor/atomic bomb/ missile launcher" hyperbole that is the fall-back for the (pardon me midwinter) "OMGWTFNRABUBBASKILLEVERYONE" GUN BANNERS (not controllers).

...and that argument is being made by people who castigate others for their strawmen...

There could be a real revolutionary uprising if the SC votes against.

Probably. Easy enough to deal with, though. Just build a wall around the South.

Cruel and unusual punishment?

Exactly. Are we constitutionally guaranteed the right to bear arms of all kinds? They are really delving into a firestorm on this issue, but it's one that's way overdue.