Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

 

2010-02-13 00:32:34
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7058|PNW

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The part highlighted in cyan indicates a aside; a national idea. The part highlighted in yellow indicates the state that must exist before the first state is possible. I think that if the founding fathers meant that an armed populace should only consist of armed militia, it would have been worded as such.
What if a Supreme Court decided that the first state did not necessarily entail individual gun ownership? It seems to me that it would be reasonable to say that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" extends only to the point that it is "necessary to the security of a free State".

For example by your line of thinking, you argue that every person being forced to own a gun would bring about a free state - but the initial condition is not necessary to bring about the second.
You're trying to interpret my line of thinking without enough information, so I'm going to do this one more time:

"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."

Whether or not the first half is realistically applicable to modern society is irrelevant. The fact remains that the second half is a logical brick wall against congress. All the government can do, short of a constitutional convention, is wrap it up in red tape. They may not be able to completely stop Americans from arming up, but they can make it a huge headache to do so.

More than that I don't really have time to get into at the moment, but I would like to point out that it seems to me (and I could be wrong, since I haven't read the whole thread), that it is somewhat disingenuous of you to start a thread on a neutral note only to try and subtly poke and prod people one way or the other as the discussion grows.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-02-13 00:33:32)

2010-02-13 01:03:59
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The part highlighted in cyan indicates a aside; a national idea. The part highlighted in yellow indicates the state that must exist before the first state is possible. I think that if the founding fathers meant that an armed populace should only consist of armed militia, it would have been worded as such.
What if a Supreme Court decided that the first state did not necessarily entail individual gun ownership? It seems to me that it would be reasonable to say that "the right of the People to keep and bear arms" extends only to the point that it is "necessary to the security of a free State".

For example by your line of thinking, you argue that every person being forced to own a gun would bring about a free state - but the initial condition is not necessary to bring about the second.
You're trying to interpret my line of thinking without enough information, so I'm going to do this one more time:

"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."

Whether or not the first half is realistically applicable to modern society is irrelevant. The fact remains that the second half is a logical brick wall against congress. All the government can do, short of a constitutional convention, is wrap it up in red tape. They may not be able to completely stop Americans from arming up, but they can make it a huge headache to do so.
I don't know that the halves can be so easily separated from one another. If the first half is realistically irrelevant, what proof is there that the second half is not equally irrelevant in these times?  I don't know that you can take parts out and have the rest stand on its own - who is to say that the framers would have believed in individual gun ownership if it was no longer correlated to the security of a free state.

Not that we should be living and dying by what the framers may or may not have wanted - but if their intentions aren't the end-all be-all of our government, then what is stopping us from rewriting it to mean exactly what we intend?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

More than that I don't really have time to get into at the moment, but I would like to point out that it seems to me (and I could be wrong, since I haven't read the whole thread), that it is somewhat disingenuous of you to start a thread on a neutral note only to try and subtly poke and prod people one way or the other as the discussion grows.
I am trying to poke people in the direction of what the thread is about, not what they think the thread is about - that is to say if the wording of the Second Amendment implies what we typically understand it to imply, and if the wording should be changed according to our values. I am not interested in what those values are, or what stance someone has on gun control. You are one of the few that actually broke down the wording to prove a point. I am not convinced by what you're saying yet, but at least it's on topic.
2010-02-13 02:46:15
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7058|PNW

F_M wrote:

...
It's difficult to shadowbox with someone who waltzes around semantics without trying to deconstruct words yourself. If you declare that the two halves are indivisible, do you agree that neither half should be reinterpreted as something it isn't, lest the entire amendment be invalidated?

The second amendment focuses on three things.
1) The right of the people (not only the militia, but the people) to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed, to enable the following:
2) State security is the overarching goal. {I would naturally assume that this includes the security of the people. If you follow this doctrine, then yes: gun ownership correlates greatly with this. The debate is primarily between the impersonal level of whether or not they cause more overall problems than they solve, and the personal level of self-defense advocates.} Optional - state security in the form of:
3) A well-regulated militia is stated to be necessary, but it doesn't go so far as to mandate membership. It's cultural validity, whether conventional, unconventional or even reinterpreted as the castle doctrine, is not the lynch pin for the other two-thirds.

That aside, no matter how much it's jawed over, it is still part of the Bill of Rights. If you manage to change it, you would set up a political and logical precedent, allowing who knows what alterations to be made to others in the ten. For the sake of argument, assume that the second amendment was rewritten or erased. How would you like congress to follow up on it by curtailing some of the freedoms ensured by the first amendment, due to the fact that our new social environment, the internet, is something the founding fathers hadn't thought of? Not something the Electronic Frontier Foundation would approve of, I'd think.

what is stopping us from rewriting it to mean exactly what we intend?
Again, it is the Bill of Rights. You don't just rewrite it on a whim. It would take colossal federal and state government umph, which politicians would be flat out unwilling to provide, short of a political environment that lends itself to such upheavals, for good or ill.

...if the wording of the Second Amendment implies what we typically understand it to imply, and if the wording should be changed according to our values. I am not interested in what those values are, or what stance someone has on gun control.
Then why create a thread about the second amendment when it is inextricably intertwined with the matter of gun control, express neutrality then decide to counter responses?

It's like setting a giant bowl of Cheetos down in the middle of a D&D table, expecting the players to not only ignore the tempting orangeness, but to ignore it in favor of talking about the bowl's pretty patterns...then finding something to snipe about when opinions are proffered. I'm not specifically trying to be insulting when I say this, and I'm not trying to say you are, but it really feels like an elaborate bit of trolling.

Last edited by unnamednewbie13 (2010-02-13 02:56:01)

2010-02-13 05:37:19
Cybargs
Moderated
+2,285|7002
I thought they couldn't rewrite the bill of rights. Besides if they attempted to rewrite the second one, there would be a large shit storm coming since people would argue "if you rewrite one, you can rewrite all."
https://cache.www.gametracker.com/server_info/203.46.105.23:21300/b_350_20_692108_381007_FFFFFF_000000.png
2010-02-13 09:30:30
Mitch
16 more years
+877|6811|South Florida

1stSFOD-Delta wrote:

JohnG@lt wrote:

Perfectly fine as written.
I like my guns. I think I'll keep em.
These.

Also, the writer of this is not grasping the fact that every civilian with a gun outnumbers the fed by millions to 1.

The American military is here to defend the people, not arrest the people. I feel that the fed would have a hard time getting the military to cooperate.
15 more years! 15 more years!
2010-02-13 16:18:01
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

F_M wrote:

...
It's difficult to shadowbox with someone who waltzes around semantics without trying to deconstruct words yourself. If you declare that the two halves are indivisible, do you agree that neither half should be reinterpreted as something it isn't, lest the entire amendment be invalidated?
I broke it down in the OP - a well-regulated militia does not mean individual ownership. I showed why the two are not necessarily linked.

I definitely do. That is why I think it is important the militia part is worded appropriately, so that the weapons ownership part isn't invalidated.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

The second amendment focuses on three things.
1) The right of the people (not only the militia, but the people) to keep and bear firearms shall not be infringed, to enable the following:
2) State security is the overarching goal. {I would naturally assume that this includes the security of the people. If you follow this doctrine, then yes: gun ownership correlates greatly with this. The debate is primarily between the impersonal level of whether or not they cause more overall problems than they solve, and the personal level of self-defense advocates.} Optional - state security in the form of:
3) A well-regulated militia is stated to be necessary, but it doesn't go so far as to mandate membership. It's cultural validity, whether conventional, unconventional or even reinterpreted as the castle doctrine, is not the lynch pin for the other two-thirds.
What if the overarching goal is reached without #1? If the following is enabled without the right of the people to keep and bear firearms. Whether or not gun ownership enables the security of the state is not even the point - do you want someone to be making the argument that it doesn't to a liberal Supreme Court?

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

That aside, no matter how much it's jawed over, it is still part of the Bill of Rights. If you manage to change it, you would set up a political and logical precedent, allowing who knows what alterations to be made to others in the ten. For the sake of argument, assume that the second amendment was rewritten or erased. How would you like congress to follow up on it by curtailing some of the freedoms ensured by the first amendment, due to the fact that our new social environment, the internet, is something the founding fathers hadn't thought of? Not something the Electronic Frontier Foundation would approve of, I'd think.
Blindy restricting ourselves to the Bill of Rights as written is equally as stupid. If the country can't increase individual rights without letting others be taken away then we don't deserve rights at all.

By assuming incompetence you prove incompetence. Self-fulfilling prophecy.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

...if the wording of the Second Amendment implies what we typically understand it to imply, and if the wording should be changed according to our values. I am not interested in what those values are, or what stance someone has on gun control.
Then why create a thread about the second amendment when it is inextricably intertwined with the matter of gun control, express neutrality then decide to counter responses?

It's like setting a giant bowl of Cheetos down in the middle of a D&D table, expecting the players to not only ignore the tempting orangeness, but to ignore it in favor of talking about the bowl's pretty patterns...then finding something to snipe about when opinions are proffered. I'm not specifically trying to be insulting when I say this, and I'm not trying to say you are, but it really feels like an elaborate bit of trolling.
Because the issues are intertwined but not inextricably so. You can put feelings about gun control aside to look at what the law actually says, not what you want it to say. I am not neutral, I feel individual gun ownership is a very important right.

I put the Cheetos down and asked them if they would have rather I gotten Doritos. It's a valid question that deserves a valid answer. I don't think it's too much to expect an opinion about Cheetos vs. Doritos instead of inane babbling about the Cheetos immediately present.
2010-02-13 21:55:32
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7001|US
Your "community guns" bit has been rejected.  To place arms under the control of government, while claiming they belong to everyone is no more true than the Soviet Union's claim that the land belonged to the people...
The government may allow the people to use things, or use them for the people, but that is NOT the people's property.
2010-02-13 22:10:22
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

RAIMIUS wrote:

Your "community guns" bit has been rejected.
By whom?
2010-02-14 00:47:54
ruisleipa
Member
+149|6508|teh FIN-land

RAIMIUS wrote:

Your "community guns" bit has been rejected.  To place arms under the control of government, while claiming they belong to everyone is no more true than the Soviet Union's claim that the land belonged to the people...
The government may allow the people to use things, or use them for the people, but that is NOT the people's property.
wtf are you takling about...soviet union...you've no idea. what about argument that govt is elected by and represents the people UNLIKE in the SU. doesn't that make any difference?
2010-02-14 09:15:22
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

This is based on what? Because I truly have no idea how you get that out of the Amendment or any other legal document.
I'm saying the police are the general populace is a well regulated militia.  You are saying we currently do not have any standing militias, based on your post.  The police are citizens serving the public and not funded by the nation's coffers.  This is the same definition that was used during the revolutionary war.
Your first sentence doesn't make any sense and it's making it hard for me to decipher what you're saying.

The national guard pretty sufficiently covers the definition of standing militia.
I'm saying the Police ARE a militia, because they AREN'T the government.

FM wrote:

I didn't say anything about gun owners increasing the chance of unrest. I believe quite the opposite. What I am saying is when there is unrest, guns will likely escalate the situation. That is not necessarily a bad thing. To say they are the difference between a successful, moral insurrection or putting down an unjust mob however is a bit excessive.
I was refering to your statement that individual gun owners would most likely be the source of insurrection.

FM wrote:

You claim people have that right. I do not see where that is covered in the Second Amendment.
The second half of the amendment.  Also proved by case law.

FM wrote:

By organize self-defense I assume you mean against a foreign power.

It would make it significantly easier to organize resistance. You can easily organize at the point of weapons distribution, immediately imposing a chain of command and a sense of unity. Expecting people to amorphously organize is to expect disaster.
Yeah, but I'm saying there's not much difference, using the "expectivng people to amorphously organize" clause.  Assuming we are comparing a close-knit neighborhood to an armory, which takes longer to organize?  Secondly, either the people have the training or they don't.  If they have the training, then the difference is speed in organization - which a neighborhood would organize faster then waiting for a gun to be passed out.  If they don't have the training to handle the situation - does it matter if the guns are in a central location versus in individual's hands?

FM wrote:

No, I really don't see any interpretations based on what you posted that come from the wording. Historically there are a lot of SC decisions that obviously deviate from the law as written, not all justices are constructionists.
Yet it is well documented the 2nd amendment means two things, not just the one part you are highlighting.  In other words, unless you see the two issues in one amendment, then we will generally disagree on every point.

FM wrote:

I am still unsatisfied, particularly with the emphasized part.

I believe that the idea that the right to bear arms for self-defense in particular has been largely read into the Constitution, and that communal ownership is still ownership by the People. As to the second point my interpretation of the People could very well be incorrect as it is used elsewhere in the Constitution, but off the top of my head it seems to me that the right to gun ownership is the only right that has to do specifically with property law. You can't have something like free speech communally but not individually - you certainly can with weapons.
Highlighting property law here: you have the right to defend your property.  I think you are saying you have the right to own a gun as property, under property law.  But in addition, property law involves the right of defense.  With guns.  For other forms of property.
2010-02-14 12:58:37
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:


I'm saying the police are the general populace is a well regulated militia.  You are saying we currently do not have any standing militias, based on your post.  The police are citizens serving the public and not funded by the nation's coffers.  This is the same definition that was used during the revolutionary war.
Your first sentence doesn't make any sense and it's making it hard for me to decipher what you're saying.

The national guard pretty sufficiently covers the definition of standing militia.
I'm saying the Police ARE a militia, because they AREN'T the government.
A militia is simply an irregular army...just because they have guns doesn't make them a militia.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

I didn't say anything about gun owners increasing the chance of unrest. I believe quite the opposite. What I am saying is when there is unrest, guns will likely escalate the situation. That is not necessarily a bad thing. To say they are the difference between a successful, moral insurrection or putting down an unjust mob however is a bit excessive.
I was refering to your statement that individual gun owners would most likely be the source of insurrection.
I didn't say they would cause it, I said they would be the unrest. There is a huge difference between a mob with guns and a mob without guns.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

You claim people have that right. I do not see where that is covered in the Second Amendment.
The second half of the amendment.  Also proved by case law.
Case law at at times also defended separate but equal.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

By organize self-defense I assume you mean against a foreign power.

It would make it significantly easier to organize resistance. You can easily organize at the point of weapons distribution, immediately imposing a chain of command and a sense of unity. Expecting people to amorphously organize is to expect disaster.
Yeah, but I'm saying there's not much difference, using the "expectivng people to amorphously organize" clause.  Assuming we are comparing a close-knit neighborhood to an armory, which takes longer to organize?  Secondly, either the people have the training or they don't.  If they have the training, then the difference is speed in organization - which a neighborhood would organize faster then waiting for a gun to be passed out.  If they don't have the training to handle the situation - does it matter if the guns are in a central location versus in individual's hands?
I don't even know how many close knit communities there are anymore. The world doesn't look like Leave it to Beaver.

If everyone has to come to a central location to be armed, they can get training there. The few people that do know what they are doing have immediate access to those that don't, and can work with them accordingly.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

No, I really don't see any interpretations based on what you posted that come from the wording. Historically there are a lot of SC decisions that obviously deviate from the law as written, not all justices are constructionists.
Yet it is well documented the 2nd amendment means two things, not just the one part you are highlighting.  In other words, unless you see the two issues in one amendment, then we will generally disagree on every point.
The Second Amendment is one sentence. All together it is one complete idea. I don't see any evidence you have provided to the contrary. If you want to document case law and use it as your own, that is one thing - to refer to "case law" in general and assume that makes a point as it stands is dumb.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

I am still unsatisfied, particularly with the emphasized part.

I believe that the idea that the right to bear arms for self-defense in particular has been largely read into the Constitution, and that communal ownership is still ownership by the People. As to the second point my interpretation of the People could very well be incorrect as it is used elsewhere in the Constitution, but off the top of my head it seems to me that the right to gun ownership is the only right that has to do specifically with property law. You can't have something like free speech communally but not individually - you certainly can with weapons.
Highlighting property law here: you have the right to defend your property.  I think you are saying you have the right to own a gun as property, under property law.  But in addition, property law involves the right of defense.  With guns.  For other forms of property.
Where? Where is property law, where is the right to own a gun, where is the right to self-defense with guns.
2010-02-14 13:39:20
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A militia is simply an irregular army...just because they have guns doesn't make them a militia.
I've explained it before, and I disagree with you.

FM wrote:

I didn't say they would cause it, I said they would be the unrest. There is a huge difference between a mob with guns and a mob without guns.
Ummm...wut?  They don't cause it, they are it?  wtf?  Again, difference in opinion.  I believe people with guns = less unrest.

FM wrote:

Case law at at times also defended separate but equal.
Are you saying that the people who wrote separate but equal should have been able to predict the future?  How relevant is that argument?  The current case law is NOT the same as your interpretation.  Why should I agree with you?  Because you said so...despite the fact the current interpretation of the 2nd conflicts with your assumption?

FM wrote:

I don't even know how many close knit communities there are anymore. The world doesn't look like Leave it to Beaver.

If everyone has to come to a central location to be armed, they can get training there. The few people that do know what they are doing have immediate access to those that don't, and can work with them accordingly.
What's better training - 10 minutes at the armory versus 20+ years hunting in the woods?

Like I said before - why not both?  Plus I'm comparing one method to the other, because you are insisting one or the other...which is better per the requirements of a militia: 1) ease of access, 2) training, 3) faster to organize.  In all cases, home ownership wins.

FM wrote:

The Second Amendment is one sentence. All together it is one complete idea. I don't see any evidence you have provided to the contrary. If you want to document case law and use it as your own, that is one thing - to refer to "case law" in general and assume that makes a point as it stands is dumb.
Oh good god.  Google the intent of the 2nd amendment.  It's your job to support a minority opinion, not the other way around.

FM wrote:

Where? Where is property law, where is the right to own a gun, where is the right to self-defense with guns.
Well, in my first post I gave you an example - Rockport Texas.  Why weren't they charged?

I shouldn't have to explain this to another Texan but: if you are in my house and you won't leave, I can legally shoot you (after making it apparent this was the only option).  It's the easiest example I can provide that illustrates the law.
2010-02-14 14:07:29
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A militia is simply an irregular army...just because they have guns doesn't make them a militia.
I've explained it before, and I disagree with you.
http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/ … amp;ch=dic

You can disagree all you want, but your opinion doesn't exist in the realm of rationality. Police are not by definition a militia. That's not what the word means.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

I didn't say they would cause it, I said they would be the unrest. There is a huge difference between a mob with guns and a mob without guns.
Ummm...wut?  They don't cause it, they are it?  wtf?  Again, difference in opinion.  I believe people with guns = less unrest.
Giving people guns isn't going to make them any more likely to cause unrest. That is what we agree on. The point is when there is unrest, guns are what cause it to become downright dangerous with no reason to believe that justified civil revolution would be any more successful with arms.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

Case law at at times also defended separate but equal.
Are you saying that the people who wrote separate but equal should have been able to predict the future?  How relevant is that argument?  The current case law is NOT the same as your interpretation.  Why should I agree with you?  Because you said so...despite the fact the current interpretation of the 2nd conflicts with your assumption?
separate but equal : second amendment right to individually own guns :: Brown v. Board of Education : x

What is the x going to be filled in by? Is that a reinterpretation of case law that you want to have happen in the future?

You don't have to agree with me, but I have outlined why you should. Agreeing with case law but being unable to bring the specific points of case law that support the current interpretation is to consciously advocate ignorance.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

I don't even know how many close knit communities there are anymore. The world doesn't look like Leave it to Beaver.

If everyone has to come to a central location to be armed, they can get training there. The few people that do know what they are doing have immediate access to those that don't, and can work with them accordingly.
What's better training - 10 minutes at the armory versus 20+ years hunting in the woods?

Like I said before - why not both?  Plus I'm comparing one method to the other, because you are insisting one or the other...which is better per the requirements of a militia: 1) ease of access, 2) training, 3) faster to organize.  In all cases, home ownership wins.
I am not insisting one or the other, I am saying one is clearly advocated by the Second Amendment while the other is arguably not so. It isn't a matter of choosing between them, it's that it has to be proven that weapons depots or other alternatives are not sufficient to satisfy the Second Amendment in order to justify individual ownership.

1) Ease of access does not imply quality or quantity. Everyone running to their closet to get an unmaintained shotgun or relic of a handgun does not compare to racks of M-16s. As I told G@lt, "a centralized system with quality weapons and large stockpiles of ammo is going to be more effective than some people having handguns, every third gun owner having a decent rifle, and every twenty gun owners having a serious military-grade [semi-]automatic with the ammo to back it up."

It doesn't matter how quickly you can gather shit, you're still gathering shit.

2) Centralized stockpiles doesn't exempt training. How well do you even think most people know how to use a gun with the laws as they are? What kind of percentage of the population?

3) It's not going to be faster. You might be able to get a small band of 5 people together with a tenuous leader lickity split, but you're not going to be able to organize significant contingents with a chain of command in any reasonable amount of time - if you can at all. It is an organizers nightmare. Bringing everyone to a central location to be armed and put into the rank and file is the organizer's wet dream.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

The Second Amendment is one sentence. All together it is one complete idea. I don't see any evidence you have provided to the contrary. If you want to document case law and use it as your own, that is one thing - to refer to "case law" in general and assume that makes a point as it stands is dumb.
Oh good god.  Google the intent of the 2nd amendment.  It's your job to support a minority opinion, not the other way around.
The intent of the Second Amendment? You want the sanctity of our right to gun ownership to lie in something so subjective as the intent of something written 225+ years ago?

I don't even know what you're talking about with the second sentence.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

Where? Where is property law, where is the right to own a gun, where is the right to self-defense with guns.
Well, in my first post I gave you an example - Rockport Texas.  Why weren't they charged?

I shouldn't have to explain this to another Texan but: if you are in my house and you won't leave, I can legally shoot you (after making it apparent this was the only option).  It's the easiest example I can provide that illustrates the law.
The questions were not rhetorical. I know what they are, I wanted you to point them out.

We have a right to life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness. That entails general property ownership, and in awesome states like ours that includes the ability to defend property with any and all force we can bring to bear.

That however assumes we have the right to own guns. That is what this thread is about. What makes it legal to own guns and not something like chemical or biological weapons? Automatic rifles? Sawed-off shotguns? Our right to own property is not all-inclusive. A straight-forward reading of the Second Amendment with little consideration to previous precedence (which is respected but not iron-clad) does not look favorably on individual gun ownership in this day in age.
2010-02-15 00:35:16
Varegg
Support fanatic :-)
+2,206|7096|Nårvei

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

That however assumes we have the right to own guns. That is what this thread is about. What makes it legal to own guns and not something like chemical or biological weapons? Automatic rifles? Sawed-off shotguns? Our right to own property is not all-inclusive. A straight-forward reading of the Second Amendment with little consideration to previous precedence (which is respected but not iron-clad) does not look favorably on individual gun ownership in this day in age.
That's the essence of the discussion right here ...
Wait behind the line ..............................................................
2010-02-15 04:38:34
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7058|PNW

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

A straight-forward reading of the Second Amendment with little consideration to previous precedence (which is respected but not iron-clad) does not look favorably on individual gun ownership in this day in age.
If they had added 'or until such a time as when they become outdated,' then it would be a tad easier for you to get me to go along with that...if you could prove to me that they aren't needed in this day and age.

However, I've already described the second amendment as worded in as many ways as I could. It's obvious that, even from your 'neutral' standpoint of not caring about what anybody thinks, you disagree, and there's nothing me or anyone else can do to either convince you otherwise or offer up an 'acceptable' explanation. It seems you'll devise a rebuttal for everything, and to be honest, that's fine. It doesn't mean you're right, but I'm nearing the limit of my patience for intractable politics, so I'm calling a halt to this silly exchange.
2010-02-15 06:58:51
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Giving people guns isn't going to make them any more likely to cause unrest. That is what we agree on. The point is when there is unrest, guns are what cause it to become downright dangerous with no reason to believe that justified civil revolution would be any more successful with arms.
Okay, but is it worth the tradeoff?  Is it worth increasing the chance of unrest for a less damaging form of unrest?

FM wrote:

separate but equal : second amendment right to individually own guns :: Brown v. Board of Education : x

What is the x going to be filled in by? Is that a reinterpretation of case law that you want to have happen in the future?

You don't have to agree with me, but I have outlined why you should. Agreeing with case law but being unable to bring the specific points of case law that support the current interpretation is to consciously advocate ignorance.
You are telling me that all the current case law (aka the body of decisions surrounding this issue when its litigated) is incorrect, because it'll be reversed in the future.  Ok, when?  This Friday, next year, ten years?  When?  What will be the exact issue?

As far as the ignorance comment - Turn it around on me.  Sure.  But I'm not the one who throws out an unsupported opinion in the OP and state it as law.  Why don't YOU come up with a case which supports your point of view?  Isn't that your job since the current opinions of the court haven't supported your interpretation?  By unsupported, I mean...find an actual litigated case where YOUR interpretation resulted in a positive result.

I'll disagree on the depot versus home ownership issue altogether...so moving along.

FM wrote:

Pug wrote:

Oh good god.  Google the intent of the 2nd amendment.  It's your job to support a minority opinion, not the other way around.
The intent of the Second Amendment? You want the sanctity of our right to gun ownership to lie in something so subjective as the intent of something written 225+ years ago?

I don't even know what you're talking about with the second sentence.
Yes, in fact that is the purpose of the amendments, to allow people certain freedoms.  Perhaps it would be helpful to actually do it, instead of saying its invalid because its 225+ years old.

As far as the second sentence: Turn it around on me.  Sure.  But I'm not the one who throws out an unsupported opinion in the OP and state it as law.  Why don't YOU come up with a case which supports your point of view?  Isn't that your job since the current opinions of the court haven't supported your interpretation?

FM wrote:

That however assumes we have the right to own guns. That is what this thread is about. What makes it legal to own guns and not something like chemical or biological weapons? Automatic rifles? Sawed-off shotguns? Our right to own property is not all-inclusive. A straight-forward reading of the Second Amendment with little consideration to previous precedence (which is respected but not iron-clad) does not look favorably on individual gun ownership in this day in age.
Again, that falls within the intent of the amendment.  On one hand you want a narrow interpretation, and on the other hand you want a broad interpretation.  It falls within the intent, and understanding the intent.
2010-02-15 10:03:47
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's obvious that, even from your 'neutral' standpoint of not caring about what anybody thinks...
I don't know where you got this idea that I am claiming to be neutral. I said this doesn't have anything to do with my views on gun control. I obviously have a very distinct opinion on the reading of the Second Amendment.

Pug wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Giving people guns isn't going to make them any more likely to cause unrest. That is what we agree on. The point is when there is unrest, guns are what cause it to become downright dangerous with no reason to believe that justified civil revolution would be any more successful with arms.
Okay, but is it worth the tradeoff?  Is it worth increasing the chance of unrest for a less damaging form of unrest?
I didn't say having guns would decrease the chance of unrest either.

If people are going to get pissed, they are going to get pissed. Gun ownership has little to do with it. The only way guns enter the equation is what people do when they become extremely pissed.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

separate but equal : second amendment right to individually own guns :: Brown v. Board of Education : x

What is the x going to be filled in by? Is that a reinterpretation of case law that you want to have happen in the future?

You don't have to agree with me, but I have outlined why you should. Agreeing with case law but being unable to bring the specific points of case law that support the current interpretation is to consciously advocate ignorance.
You are telling me that all the current case law (aka the body of decisions surrounding this issue when its litigated) is incorrect, because it'll be reversed in the future.  Ok, when?  This Friday, next year, ten years?  When?  What will be the exact issue?
It doesn't matter. The point is it could be. Amendments like the First are so explicit there is no room for unsatisfactory interpretations.

Pug wrote:

As far as the ignorance comment - Turn it around on me.  Sure.  But I'm not the one who throws out an unsupported opinion in the OP and state it as law.  Why don't YOU come up with a case which supports your point of view?  Isn't that your job since the current opinions of the court haven't supported your interpretation?  By unsupported, I mean...find an actual litigated case where YOUR interpretation resulted in a positive result.
I don't understand how you don't get this. My opinion has NOTHING to do with what the Judicial Branch does or says. It is completely my own. The logical reasons why it is correct validates itself as an opinion, grasping for instances where someone of greater ethos than yourself backs what you say does no validate the opinion. If you borrow opinions you have to use their reasoning too - which is fine, but you're not quoting cases or majority/minority opinions. Either give me specific reasons why case law backs your opinion or leave it out entirely.

Pug wrote:

I'll disagree on the depot versus home ownership issue altogether...so moving along.
lol

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

Pug wrote:

Oh good god.  Google the intent of the 2nd amendment.  It's your job to support a minority opinion, not the other way around.
The intent of the Second Amendment? You want the sanctity of our right to gun ownership to lie in something so subjective as the intent of something written 225+ years ago?

I don't even know what you're talking about with the second sentence.
Yes, in fact that is the purpose of the amendments, to allow people certain freedoms.  Perhaps it would be helpful to actually do it, instead of saying its invalid because its 225+ years old.
What? Actually do what?

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

That however assumes we have the right to own guns. That is what this thread is about. What makes it legal to own guns and not something like chemical or biological weapons? Automatic rifles? Sawed-off shotguns? Our right to own property is not all-inclusive. A straight-forward reading of the Second Amendment with little consideration to previous precedence (which is respected but not iron-clad) does not look favorably on individual gun ownership in this day in age.
Again, that falls within the intent of the amendment.  On one hand you want a narrow interpretation, and on the other hand you want a broad interpretation.  It falls within the intent, and understanding the intent.
What? Narrow interpretation, broad interpretation?

The intent is subjective. That is the problem. It is not difficult to see how easy it would be to lump handguns in with automatic rifles, particularly as our society becomes more and more progressive.
2010-02-15 12:01:50
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

I didn't say having guns would decrease the chance of unrest either.

If people are going to get pissed, they are going to get pissed. Gun ownership has little to do with it. The only way guns enter the equation is what people do when they become extremely pissed.
Well, then what is your opinion of decreasing/increasing the chance of unrest?  Unrest being defined as forming a angry mob.  Decreasing/increasing being defined as frequency.  You seem to be dancing on a thin line.

FM wrote:

It doesn't matter. The point is it could be. Amendments like the First are so explicit there is no room for unsatisfactory interpretations.
But wait...you made an argument that the current interpretation of the amendment is incorrect, based on the future interpretation will favor your opinion...how is it for the past 225+ years the current interpretation is false?

So basically you have a philosophical difference between reality and what you believe to be true.  Meaning: your opinion is not backed up by facts, and the litigation history.  Unless of course you want to post an example.

FM wrote:

I don't understand how you don't get this. My opinion has NOTHING to do with what the Judicial Branch does or says. It is completely my own. The logical reasons why it is correct validates itself as an opinion, grasping for instances where someone of greater ethos than yourself backs what you say does no validate the opinion. If you borrow opinions you have to use their reasoning too - which is fine, but you're not quoting cases or majority/minority opinions. Either give me specific reasons why case law backs your opinion or leave it out entirely.
I know your opinion has NOTHING to do with what the Judicial Branch does or says.  But my POV is supported by 225+ years of interpretations.  Is yours?  Post one.

So...give me specific reasons why you are correct, perferably backed up with something besides your opinion.  Do I really HAVE to prove the current interpretation, when you already know it because you are arguing against it?

Your argument is like saying "the ocean is does not have water in it".  Me - yes there is water there...  You...research please and post links...

I'm saying fuck that - its your job to support your opinion with facts.  Yet, you are arguing -  wtf?  where's your facts?  Ummm...no.  That's your job, since we both know water is in the ocean.

FM wrote:

What? Actually do what?
See previous quote.

Fm wrote:

What? Narrow interpretation, broad interpretation?
Narrow interpretation = homeowners weren't supposed to own guns.  Broad interpretation = homeowners can own guns, plus chemical weapons.

But since you posted chemcial weapons earlier...I mentioned self defense is a primary point within the amendment.  Is a chemical weapon a self defense type weapon?

FM wrote:

The intent is subjective. That is the problem. It is not difficult to see how easy it would be to lump handguns in with automatic rifles, particularly as our society becomes more and more progressive.
FM, ALL laws are subjective.  How the law works is cases are litigated, and the results are tallied.  Based on this tally, a trend develops.  The trend shows how the law has been interpreted over the years, which makes a clear black and white of what is unlawful/lawful.  Now, the Supreme Court makes decisions when the case lands on the line.  When the case lands on the line, the Supreme Court goes back an tries to interpret what the intent of the law was, by those who wrote it...and then consider the case facts to make a ruling.

So yes, the INTENT is subjective based on the facts presented within each case, but the INTERPRETATION currently is not.  It's been tried over and over...and there's a trend.  I'm pointing you to the trend and telling you that an anal reading of the 2nd amendment isn't enough to draw a conclusion.

Last edited by Pug (2010-02-15 12:06:37)

2010-02-15 14:23:41
unnamednewbie13
Moderator
+2,056|7058|PNW

Once, and only once more...

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

It's obvious that, even from your 'neutral' standpoint of not caring about what anybody thinks...
I don't know where you got this idea that I am claiming to be neutral. I said this doesn't have anything to do with my views on gun control. I obviously have a very distinct opinion on the reading of the Second Amendment.
I am not interested in what [our] values are, or what stance someone has on gun control.
You cannot separate the issue of gun control from the second amendment unless what this is discussion essentially amounts to is devil's advocate.

Otherwise, this thread is far too aggravating.
2010-02-15 17:12:36
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7001|US

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Your "community guns" bit has been rejected.
By whom?
The Supreme Court of the United States!
The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS (NOT "gives") an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Since you didn't take note of it before: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
2010-02-15 17:17:33
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7001|US

ruisleipa wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Your "community guns" bit has been rejected.  To place arms under the control of government, while claiming they belong to everyone is no more true than the Soviet Union's claim that the land belonged to the people...
The government may allow the people to use things, or use them for the people, but that is NOT the people's property.
wtf are you takling about...soviet union...you've no idea. what about argument that govt is elected by and represents the people UNLIKE in the SU. doesn't that make any difference?
Anything owned by the government is not property of a person.
Let's say the government claims it is storing firearms for "the people."  What happens when Bob goes to the armory to take "his" rifle?  If it is actually "his," he will not need permission to take it--he owns it.  Who here actually believes that would happen? 

In the USSR, could people build a new house on a piece of land?  It belonged to "the people" and they certainly were people.  Yet, people could not simply improve whatever piece of land they wanted to build on.  Why?  They didn't have the rights--the rights that come with real ownership.
2010-02-15 17:48:31
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

Pug wrote:

Well, then what is your opinion of decreasing/increasing the chance of unrest?  Unrest being defined as forming a angry mob.  Decreasing/increasing being defined as frequency.  You seem to be dancing on a thin line.
It's got nothing to do with frequency...I just said that. The magnitude of the problem is the only difference.

Pug wrote:

But wait...you made an argument that the current interpretation of the amendment is incorrect, based on the future interpretation will favor your opinion...how is it for the past 225+ years the current interpretation is false?

So basically you have a philosophical difference between reality and what you believe to be true.  Meaning: your opinion is not backed up by facts, and the litigation history.  Unless of course you want to post an example.
I am not saying the future will favor my interpretation. I am saying it could. There is nothing in history to suggest the interpretation is beyond question, which implies the future is open to all sorts of possibilities. Even to say that the there will not be a gross breach of any amendment, even one so explicit as the First, is to be particularly naive. The issue here is the Second Amendment seems to be particularly unclear in comparison, and I can see the possibility of it being reinterpreted even in an otherwise reasonable society.

Stop asking me for fucking examples. All I am trying to prove is that there is room for misinterpretation. The burden of proof is on you to provide reasoning (case work or logical train of thought) that proves otherwise.

It's like you're asking me to provide historical proof that there will be flying cars in the future. I can't prove that there will be - but I am only trying to show that it is a possibility anyways. If you're trying to discount even the possibility then the significant burden of proof lies on you.

Pug wrote:

I know your opinion has NOTHING to do with what the Judicial Branch does or says.  But my POV is supported by 225+ years of interpretations. 

So...give me specific reasons why you are correct, perferably backed up with something besides your opinion.  Do I really HAVE to prove the current interpretation, when you already know it because you are arguing against it?

Your argument is like saying "the ocean is does not have water in it".  Me - yes there is water there...  You...research please and post links...

I'm saying fuck that - its your job to support your opinion with facts.  Yet, you are arguing -  wtf?  where's your facts?  Ummm...no.  That's your job, since we both know water is in the ocean.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The general populace is not a well regulated militia. To allow individuals to own guns doesn’t ensure “the security of a free State”; not now and arguably not when the Bill of Rights was formed. An armed, semi-civilian contingent could be necessary and effective in the maintenance of the security of relatively small areas of a nation, but there is still quite the logical leap to go from arming a militia and arming individual citizens.
That is exactly my specific reasoning. To which you replied: "My interpretation is that the police are the militia." So...I'm really looking for where the faulty logic is here in what I said the first time.

That is THE worst metaphor you could have possibly come up with...there is no empirical evidence in judicial interpretation.

Pug wrote:

Narrow interpretation = homeowners weren't supposed to own guns.  Broad interpretation = homeowners can own guns, plus chemical weapons.

But since you posted chemcial weapons earlier...I mentioned self defense is a primary point within the amendment.  Is a chemical weapon a self defense type weapon?
My point was not a narrow interpretation or a broad interpretation, I was saying that clearly the Supreme Court has decided that the Bill of Rights does not ensure those rights to obvious excess, shouting "Fire!" in a packed theater, etc. That is well and good. But what is deemed excess is still a relative value. A sawed-off is deemed excessive - I don't see the line as being particularly sharp between owning something like that and owning a handgun.

Self-defense isn't mentioned at all in the amendment. How can it possibly be a primary point?

Pug wrote:

FM, ALL laws are subjective.  How the law works is cases are litigated, and the results are tallied.  Based on this tally, a trend develops.  The trend shows how the law has been interpreted over the years, which makes a clear black and white of what is unlawful/lawful.  Now, the Supreme Court makes decisions when the case lands on the line.  When the case lands on the line, the Supreme Court goes back an tries to interpret what the intent of the law was, by those who wrote it...and then consider the case facts to make a ruling.

So yes, the INTENT is subjective based on the facts presented within each case, but the INTERPRETATION currently is not.  It's been tried over and over...and there's a trend.  I'm pointing you to the trend and telling you that an anal reading of the 2nd amendment isn't enough to draw a conclusion.
ahaha you said clear black and white.

I mean dude, Dred Scott Decision. Would that same ruling be made today based on that precedence? Because at least one case certainly was. Trends do not always follow.

unnamednewbie13 wrote:

what this is discussion essentially amounts to is devil's advocate.
well duh

RAIMIUS wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

RAIMIUS wrote:

Your "community guns" bit has been rejected.
By whom?
The Supreme Court of the United States!
The 2nd Amendment PROTECTS (NOT "gives") an individual right to keep and bear arms.
Since you didn't take note of it before: http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZS.html
I read it the first time.

I read the specific link you posted and I still do not see where the "community guns" bit is rejected.

It's not like I'm not in good company either.
2010-02-15 22:03:30
RAIMIUS
You with the face!
+244|7001|US

SCOTUS wrote:

Held: 

    1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
"Individual Rights" are not "Collective Rights." 
A government managed armory would fall under a "collective right" interpretation.

Steven's dissent does hit on a couple good points, but the collective rights theory (when based on the 1930s Miller case) is pretty weak.  Miller was dead, and his attourney didn't argue the case.  The 1930s court found that only weapons suitable for use by a militia were protected (to save the 1934 NFA)...rather odd, considering the NFA restricted weapons quite often used in miitary service not 5 years later...
Even so, the 1930s Miller case said nothing about whether the right to keep and bear arms was indiviual or collective.  Citing starre decisis to support collective rights is a bit of a stretch.

As to the arbitrary "in common use" restriction from Heller, I'll agree that it seems to be pulled out of a hat.  If one wants to argue for it, one should probably argue that it is a reasonable standard and fits with a sensible standard of review (pick one)...OR that the 1934 NFA was a mistake.

Last edited by RAIMIUS (2010-02-15 22:12:21)

2010-02-15 22:17:56
Pug
UR father's brother's nephew's former roommate
+652|6828|Texas - Bigger than France
You are an incredible piece of work. lol

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

Well, then what is your opinion of decreasing/increasing the chance of unrest?  Unrest being defined as forming a angry mob.  Decreasing/increasing being defined as frequency.  You seem to be dancing on a thin line.
It's got nothing to do with frequency...I just said that. The magnitude of the problem is the only difference.
Right, exactly, but the question actually was about whether home ownership versus no ownership is worth the tradeoff, so I attempted to ask the question again.  From what I gather, you are saying an individual incident would be more severe, but I'm asking to compare the two over time, aka # incidents x severity = points.

For example, there's one incident and 100 people die, versus 1000 incidents and 101 people die.

FM wrote:

I am not saying the future will favor my interpretation. I am saying it could. There is nothing in history to suggest the interpretation is beyond question, which implies the future is open to all sorts of possibilities. Even to say that the there will not be a gross breach of any amendment, even one so explicit as the First, is to be particularly naive. The issue here is the Second Amendment seems to be particularly unclear in comparison, and I can see the possibility of it being reinterpreted even in an otherwise reasonable society.

Stop asking me for fucking examples. All I am trying to prove is that there is room for misinterpretation. The burden of proof is on you to provide reasoning (case work or logical train of thought) that proves otherwise.

It's like you're asking me to provide historical proof that there will be flying cars in the future. I can't prove that there will be - but I am only trying to show that it is a possibility anyways. If you're trying to discount even the possibility then the significant burden of proof lies on you.
Well, crap.  It might happen.  Awesome.  I think that is a very strong argument.

I'm telling you, in several different ways that you aren't interpreting it correctly at all.  Sure, if you entirely ignore the intent of the law, then you can come up with a different law altogether.  Interpreting the law is not limited to the 20 or so words on paper...it includes case law, aka every document ever written about every trial surrounding the 2nd amendment...plus any writs from the supreme court who are quite fond of pulling the founding fathers' notes to figure out the intent.  You can't ignore this, as it's actually MORE important than the 2nd amendment itself.  It's the interpretation.  So I'm telling you THAT is where you should be looking.  "Case law is dumb".  Well, guess what?  Don't become a lawyer, cuz case law means everything.

I've told you the law is about the right to self defense.  The nation, the state, and yes, your own home.  This was the intent of the folks who wrote the law.  And it's been tested and supported over a long period of time.  So the current interpretation DOES NOT favor your interpretation.  Why?  Because there's a little more to it that reading a sentence.

So yeah, I'm going to ask for you to back up your opinion, because "It might happen sometime in the future" and "Your argument is illogical" doesn't support your argument.  Why?  Because NOTHING THAT I'VE COME ACROSS CURRENTLY AGREES WITH YOUR OPINION.  And I think "it might happen in the future", is unlikely.  But besides this is all moot anyway - because you need to read something besides just one sentence.

FM wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The general populace is not a well regulated militia. To allow individuals to own guns doesn’t ensure “the security of a free State”; not now and arguably not when the Bill of Rights was formed. An armed, semi-civilian contingent could be necessary and effective in the maintenance of the security of relatively small areas of a nation, but there is still quite the logical leap to go from arming a militia and arming individual citizens.
That is exactly my specific reasoning. To which you replied: "My interpretation is that the police are the militia." So...I'm really looking for where the faulty logic is here in what I said the first time.
Okay, but you see, this rebutts the wrong topic.  My quote was talking about whether I should have to run off and dig up 225+ years of cases to refute your assumption that case law is dumb, and that "Agreeing with case law but being unable to bring the specific points of case law that support the current interpretation is to consciously advocate ignorance."  Ummm...yeah.  I'm perpetuating ignorance, and so is everyone who has supported gun ownership...for 225 years...and we're wrong and ignorant...because it MIGHT revert in the future.  So that's where I was coming from.

FM wrote:

That is THE worst metaphor you could have possibly come up with...there is no empirical evidence in judicial interpretation.
Here's the rub, again...just in case...I find your anal interpretation of the 2nd amendment incorrect because you aren't expanding your search beyond the document itself.  I've told you why.  I've told you what's in there.  You've argument is that semantically the 2nd amendment is wrong.  I'm telling you its not.  I gave you an example - the police.  You didn't like that one.  But...it is.  I gave you other examples.  You ain't listening. 

So to illustrate:  Oprah is fat.  I shouldn't have to prove it to you by fucking her.  (you challenged me to beat the last one)

FM wrote:

My point was not a narrow interpretation or a broad interpretation, I was saying that clearly the Supreme Court has decided that the Bill of Rights does not ensure those rights to obvious excess, shouting "Fire!" in a packed theater, etc. That is well and good. But what is deemed excess is still a relative value. A sawed-off is deemed excessive - I don't see the line as being particularly sharp between owning something like that and owning a handgun.
Well, there's laws against sawed offs and machine guns for a reason, based on your reasoning here.  So clearly there's something out there defining what's excessive...

FM wrote:

Self-defense isn't mentioned at all in the amendment. How can it possibly be a primary point?
Guess where I'm going to point you again for the answer?

FM wrote:

ahaha you said clear black and white.

I mean dude, Dred Scott Decision. Would that same ruling be made today based on that precedence? Because at least one case certainly was. Trends do not always follow.
How about we switch gears?

What WOULD have to happen to eliminate the 2nd amendment?
2010-02-15 22:25:57
Flaming_Maniac
prince of insufficient light
+2,490|6993|67.222.138.85

RAIMIUS wrote:

SCOTUS wrote:

Held: 

    1. 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. Pp. 2–53.
"Individual Rights" are not "Collective Rights." 
A government managed armory would fall under a "collective right" interpretation.

Steven's dissent does hit on a couple good points, but the collective rights theory (when based on the 1930s Miller case) is pretty weak.  Miller was dead, and his attourney didn't argue the case.  The 1930s court found that only weapons suitable for use by a militia were protected (to save the 1934 NFA)...rather odd, considering the NFA restricted weapons quite often used in miitary service not 5 years later...
Even so, the 1930s Miller case said nothing about whether the right to keep and bear arms was indiviual or collective.  Citing starre decisis to support collective rights is a bit of a stretch.

As to the arbitrary "in common use" restriction from Heller, I'll agree that it seems to be pulled out of a hat.  If one wants to argue for it, one should probably argue that it is a reasonable standard and fits with a sensible standard of review (pick one)...OR that the 1934 NFA was a mistake.
Yes it would, but I don't see that anyone is specifically ruling that "collective right" is not general individual right. They say that there is an individual right, but not specifically that the collective right is unconstitutional.

I'm not saying that there is a brilliant legal precedent to read collective rights in. Regardless of precedent, I still feel as Stevens did that the decisions was "a strained and unpersuasive reading" with an "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense". That plus particular attention to the militia clause just does not make me feel secure in my right to own a gun for reasons of self-defense. I would be disappointed if I lost that right because of lack of foresight and resistance to bureaucratic evolution.

Pug wrote:

Right, exactly, but the question actually was about whether home ownership versus no ownership is worth the tradeoff, so I attempted to ask the question again.  From what I gather, you are saying an individual incident would be more severe, but I'm asking to compare the two over time, aka # incidents x severity = points.

For example, there's one incident and 100 people die, versus 1000 incidents and 101 people die.
The magnitude of the problem is the only difference. The number of incidents over time is the same.

Mobs have a lot of inertia. It takes a lot to get them moving, and it takes a lot to stop them. I don't think guns make them any lighter or heavier, just a lot more pointy.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

I am not saying the future will favor my interpretation. I am saying it could. There is nothing in history to suggest the interpretation is beyond question, which implies the future is open to all sorts of possibilities. Even to say that the there will not be a gross breach of any amendment, even one so explicit as the First, is to be particularly naive. The issue here is the Second Amendment seems to be particularly unclear in comparison, and I can see the possibility of it being reinterpreted even in an otherwise reasonable society.

Stop asking me for fucking examples. All I am trying to prove is that there is room for misinterpretation. The burden of proof is on you to provide reasoning (case work or logical train of thought) that proves otherwise.

It's like you're asking me to provide historical proof that there will be flying cars in the future. I can't prove that there will be - but I am only trying to show that it is a possibility anyways. If you're trying to discount even the possibility then the significant burden of proof lies on you.
Well, crap.  It might happen.  Awesome.  I think that is a very strong argument.

I'm telling you, in several different ways that you aren't interpreting it correctly at all.  Sure, if you entirely ignore the intent of the law, then you can come up with a different law altogether.  Interpreting the law is not limited to the 20 or so words on paper...it includes case law, aka every document ever written about every trial surrounding the 2nd amendment...plus any writs from the supreme court who are quite fond of pulling the founding fathers' notes to figure out the intent.  You can't ignore this, as it's actually MORE important than the 2nd amendment itself.  It's the interpretation.  So I'm telling you THAT is where you should be looking.  "Case law is dumb".  Well, guess what?  Don't become a lawyer, cuz case law means everything.

I've told you the law is about the right to self defense.  The nation, the state, and yes, your own home.  This was the intent of the folks who wrote the law.  And it's been tested and supported over a long period of time.  So the current interpretation DOES NOT favor your interpretation.  Why?  Because there's a little more to it that reading a sentence.

So yeah, I'm going to ask for you to back up your opinion, because "It might happen sometime in the future" and "Your argument is illogical" doesn't support your argument.  Why?  Because NOTHING THAT I'VE COME ACROSS CURRENTLY AGREES WITH YOUR OPINION.  And I think "it might happen in the future", is unlikely.  But besides this is all moot anyway - because you need to read something besides just one sentence.
How do you know what the intent is? How do you know that the intent wasn't pushed in during the first few cases, and then rode on case law from there? If you have reason to believe that was the original intention, I would love to here it. I genuinely am unaware of any such documents.

2xx years is not a long time in terms of nations. It has hardly been tested.

You keep telling me that's what the law is about but I don't know why. It's not in the document. In the decision RAIMIUS and I are talking about Justice Stevens says there is "omission of any statement of purpose related to the right to use firearms for hunting or personal self-defense". Forget some kid on the internet, what are you going to tell him? He does know all the case law and secondary documents. How can he still hold that opinion?

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

The general populace is not a well regulated militia. To allow individuals to own guns doesn’t ensure “the security of a free State”; not now and arguably not when the Bill of Rights was formed. An armed, semi-civilian contingent could be necessary and effective in the maintenance of the security of relatively small areas of a nation, but there is still quite the logical leap to go from arming a militia and arming individual citizens.
That is exactly my specific reasoning. To which you replied: "My interpretation is that the police are the militia." So...I'm really looking for where the faulty logic is here in what I said the first time.
Okay, but you see, this rebutts the wrong topic.  My quote was talking about whether I should have to run off and dig up 225+ years of cases to refute your assumption that case law is dumb, and that "Agreeing with case law but being unable to bring the specific points of case law that support the current interpretation is to consciously advocate ignorance."  Ummm...yeah.  I'm perpetuating ignorance, and so is everyone who has supported gun ownership...for 225 years...and we're wrong and ignorant...because it MIGHT revert in the future.  So that's where I was coming from.

FM wrote:

That is THE worst metaphor you could have possibly come up with...there is no empirical evidence in judicial interpretation.
Here's the rub, again...just in case...I find your anal interpretation of the 2nd amendment incorrect because you aren't expanding your search beyond the document itself.  I've told you why.  I've told you what's in there.  You've argument is that semantically the 2nd amendment is wrong.  I'm telling you its not.  I gave you an example - the police.  You didn't like that one.  But...it is.  I gave you other examples.  You ain't listening. 

So to illustrate:  Oprah is fat.  I shouldn't have to prove it to you by fucking her.  (you challenged me to beat the last one)
Your police example makes zero sense. The dictionary definition of militia and police are obviously completely different. There is no overlap.

Better metaphor. Oprah's fatness is extremely relative. Most people would call her fat. All it takes for her to get laid is for one guy to disagree. In the case of changing the Second Amendment for all intents and purposes for 5/9 people to disagree.

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

My point was not a narrow interpretation or a broad interpretation, I was saying that clearly the Supreme Court has decided that the Bill of Rights does not ensure those rights to obvious excess, shouting "Fire!" in a packed theater, etc. That is well and good. But what is deemed excess is still a relative value. A sawed-off is deemed excessive - I don't see the line as being particularly sharp between owning something like that and owning a handgun.
Well, there's laws against sawed offs and machine guns for a reason, based on your reasoning here.  So clearly there's something out there defining what's excessive...
Yeah there is. Our judicial system. How much would it really take to define handguns as excessive?

Pug wrote:

FM wrote:

ahaha you said clear black and white.

I mean dude, Dred Scott Decision. Would that same ruling be made today based on that precedence? Because at least one case certainly was. Trends do not always follow.
How about we switch gears?

What WOULD have to happen to eliminate the 2nd amendment?
A decently liberal Supreme Court, and maybe a bump in crime wouldn't hurt. The case RAIMIUS brought up was only won 5-4. One person dude. They had to have guns in their own home locked and useless, on the mainland of the U.S. Fuck that.

 

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5

Board footer

Privacy Policy - © 2025 Jeff Minard