BF2S Forums Second Amendment

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.

Well, I actually believe there will be less incidents.  And if you added up the damage, it would be less.  So I'm seeing you think that guns should be banned in the home because things will be worse.  That's all I was asking.

FM wrote:

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?

The likelihood that precedence was pressed earlier incorrectly is unlikely.

It's not in the amendment.  I've explained where it is.

FM wrote:

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.

Yet generally, there is the majority and minority opinion.

My police example fits fine.  It fits within point #1 in post #78 by unnamed.  "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:"

FM wrote:

Yeah there is. Our judicial system. How much would it really take to define handguns as excessive?

Laws aren't limited to the Bill of Rights...there's more out there.

You've narrowed your interpretation of the amendment to the same limitations a sixth grader would have - johnny, tell me what this sentence means....

Last edited by Pug (2010-02-16 06:27:42)

Pug wrote:

So I'm seeing you think that guns should be banned in the home because things will be worse.

No, I don't.

Pug wrote:

The likelihood that precedence was pressed earlier incorrectly is unlikely.

It's not in the amendment.  I've explained where it is.

Because?

You have claimed where it is. I am saying the Justice clearly has a better understanding of secondary documents and case law than you or me - but he still has an issue with the interpretation. He has no doubt been presented with your exact argument posited in its highest form, and still finds it insufficient. It is hardly as if there is clear evidence as to the original intent as you imply.

Pug wrote:

Yet generally, there is the majority and minority opinion.

My police example fits fine.  It fits within point #1 in post #78 by unnamed.  "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:"

So? The minority turns into the majority all the time. Every popular idea in the history of ever started as or at one time or another has been an unpopular idea.

fyi my post numbers are different from yours, I can tell this time but in general specific links would be more precise when referencing other posts

The police has nothing to do with the people though. In your first post you said

Pug wrote:

My interpretation is that the police are the militia.  Secondly, people have the right to police themselves (aka their own neighborhoods and houses).  Meaning, individuals too.

attempting to imply that the militia obviously has a right to own weapons, the police is a militia, and the people as a whole are the police therefore the people have the right to own guns. The police are not a militia though in any way shape or form. It's blatant when looking at the definitions.

There is still an argument for individual ownership like the one unnamed made, but when you bring "police = militia" into the equation the argument breaks down.

Pug wrote:

You've narrowed your interpretation of the amendment to the same limitations a sixth grader would have - johnny, tell me what this sentence means....

That's like saying the entire Judicial system is a matter of determining the meaning of a bunch of sentences in a bunch of different books.

Pug wrote:

This one is the best one I've read (out of two)
http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndpur.html

http://www.capitalism.org/faq/guns.htm

Feel free:
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en& … nse+second

The best one's you have read are 3 and 4 on google...

source 1 wrote:

Not only are Tucker's remarks solid evidence that the militia clause was not intended to restrict the right to keep arms to active militia members, but he speaks of a broad right – Tucker specifically mentions self-defense.

What kind of crap is this. It's not solid evidence at all. It's the opinion of one person backed up by what they do in another country.

The only sources that are even secondary sources are by Hamilton. No where does he refer specifically to the right of individual gun ownership, and the instance where he mentions "self-defense" he means the defense of the people against a tyrannical government - the right to protect liberty with weapons, not life or property.

The second site is a joke. It starts with

source 2 wrote:

Is the right to own a gun based on the second amendment?

No. The right to own guns is not based on the second amendment. If there were no second amendment in the U.S. Constitution, one would still possess a right to own a weapon of self-defense, which in today's context, means a firearm, i.e., a gun.

K.

It goes on to say "The right to own a firearm, is based on the right to self-defense, i.e., the right to those means to defend oneself against those who wish to destroy one's life. The right to self-defense is itself is a corollary of the right to life (a corollary is here defined as a self-evident implication of a general principle).

It would be absurd to say one has the right to life, but does not have the right to the means necessary to protect that life. It would be like saying one has the right to life, but not the right to purchase food. Yet, this is what opponents to the right to own a gun are really against: the right to life."

...despite the fact that very reasonable means to protect one's life are illegal, including but not limited to automatic weapons, sawed-off shotguns, and even switchblades, the most basic tool of defense, are illegal in Texas of all places.

Pug wrote:

So you are just SAYING things would be worse if guns were banned.

Semantic genius fucking are you.

What I was saying was domestic peace is not a sufficient argument for private gun ownership. I didn't say guns should be banned, nor did I say they were the problem. What I said is they weren't the solution, in which case that is one less argument for the right to own them.

Pug wrote:

It's about using prior opinions to develop an arguement, which by the way, the original intent is what people use to form their argument. So again, I've explained where it is, and you've said "case law is dumb".  Get a clue on how the law works and get back to me.

Okay that has to be at least the second time time you have grossly misquoted me for saying "case law is dumb". The quote is:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.

Get it fucking right. If you're going to quote me then actually quote me. You didn't paraphrase, you changed the meaning utterly.

Where is the proof about original intent though? There has to be a lot of evidence to suggest the law means anything other than what it says. Respecting previous decisions is important, but not to the extent that the law is seriously misapplied over and over and over. As I have said (and you have glossed over) if case law was the end all be all in the interpretation of the Constitution, standards such as separate but equal would still exist.

Pug wrote:

If minoritiy turns to the majority all the time...in the past 200 years, HOW MANY TIMES has the minority turned to majority for this issue?  Oh wait, that's right.   It's going to be reversed this week.  Or next week.

But until you get your grey stuff around the fact there is a larger interpretation to the 2nd amendment you are missing...it's unlikely.  Oh wait, the entire interpretation throughout history has been incorrect also?  really?  That's your argument?

What do you think the Marshall Court would have said if it were told in the future guns would be regulated to the extent that they are now? That individuals aren't allowed to own automatic weapons, or that the laws in D.C. for a time were so that you had to keep a legally owned hand gun locked and unusable, even in your house? The fact that many of these cases are even an issue would be preposterous 200 years ago.

What is the proof against it? What is the proof that the very first interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct?

The Supreme Court has done a lot of things that many would argue are not really in their power. Establishing judicial review and the use of the necessary and proper clause to justify a national bank are a few examples.

Pug wrote:

I'm going to stick to my guns - police are deputized citizens.  Keep in mind that the reason why you are failing to make this connection is because you believe the only way a militia can form is if it faces a foreign invasion.  Why?  Because you haven't researched what the 2nd amendment actually means in reality.

Also...understand that the 2nd is more than a militia clause.  Apparently you don't.

Okay, no. "Keep in mind that the reason why you are failing to make this connection is because you believe the only way a militia can form is if it faces a foreign invasion." incorrect. As it is we have a perfectly valid, standing militia. The police still have nothing to do with it. The police are a force of law, not an amateur army.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/police

There aren't any parallels between the words.

The militia clause gives meaning to the rest of the Amendment.

Pug wrote:

Well, isn't that what the OP says?  "Imma gonna limit my interpretation to this entire sentence".

...yeah it is. That's what having a codified system of law means. The law is available and readable to everyone. There is some room for interpretation in relation to the intention of the original writers because of the differences in our language, but in no way is it so severe that we can read what we think they meant by it in.

Pug wrote:

You do understand that the right to bear arms carried over from England right?  And you understand that liberty is the right to life and property right?

Secondary source materials?  You are a primary source, no?  Don't like the arguments...guess what?  The law is currently being interpreted that way.

Along with the right to life is the concept of self protection...how hard is that to understand?

Thousands of shitty sources.  Like this one from The Bill of Rights Institute
http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/pd … bory68.pdf

Read closely....

A lot of things carried over from England, a lot didn't. If we were still an English colony that's one thing, but seeing as we have our own Constitution I'd personally rather go by what ours says and not what theirs says.

The right to life and property is not mentioned at all in the Second Amendment. You can't possibly argue how to read those incredibly broad concepts into those two lines. They could have easily and very clearly written in the right to own guns for reasons of personal defense had that been their intention. You don't just forget to add in something like that.

The Second Amendment is the secondary source to what they wanted, and all the primary sources are long dead. The Amendment is unarguably the best source in determining the meaning of what the Founding Fathers desired in terms of the right to own weapons.

Did you even read your own source? It very obviously and fairly demonstrates both sides of the argument. The last lines are

source wrote:

Scholars find many examples in
English and American history for the individual’s right “to
bear arms,” as well as precedents for government regulation
of weapons and weapon use. Such results rarely settle disagreements,
but understanding these concepts can be helpful
in addressing the issue of guns today.

Pug wrote:

And this unfortunate incident illustrates another topic which isn't covered in the 2nd amendment text - you are only allowed to bear arms for lawful use.  wtf?  Its not in the amendment sentence, therefore it has been interpreted incorrectly and in the future...someday...it'll be reversed.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/te … mp;catId=7

I would first like to take a moment to talk about the abortion of the source that you have provided. It contains four paragraphs, and then presents me with a series of questions that I can use as a teaching aid. I wasn't sure myself as to the answer for the second question, but then I realized it was fairly open ended as "Answers may vary."

Reading common sense into the Bill of Rights isn't an issue and never really has been. Reading in that guns to be used in a militia are also to be used for defense of self and property on the other hand isn't reading in common sense, it's bringing an entirely new issue to the table. No matter how you look at it, the right to form an armed militia and the right to defend yourself with lethal force using a gun are vastly different.

Pug wrote:

This is bullshit by the way.  There's enough info out there to say Oprah is fat.

It's not about whether or not Oprah is fat. It's about whether she's going to get laid or not. I thought you figured that out by now.

SenorToenails wrote:

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

Pug wrote:

I'm going to stick to my guns - police are deputized citizens.  Keep in mind that the reason why you are failing to make this connection is because you believe the only way a militia can form is if it faces a foreign invasion.  Why?  Because you haven't researched what the 2nd amendment actually means in reality.

Also...understand that the 2nd is more than a militia clause.  Apparently you don't.

Okay, no. "Keep in mind that the reason why you are failing to make this connection is because you believe the only way a militia can form is if it faces a foreign invasion." incorrect. As it is we have a perfectly valid, standing militia. The police still have nothing to do with it. The police are a force of law, not an amateur army.

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/militia

http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/police

There aren't any parallels between the words.

The militia clause gives meaning to the rest of the Amendment.

Paramilitary organizations are listed explicitly in your definition there.  The New York State Police are considered such, as are many other law enforcement agencies.

I don't have time to get embroiled in this discussion at the moment, but it seems like FM is looking for 'proof' that the second amendment has been interpreted correctly.  Well, that's going to be awfully hard to provide unless you have a time machine...

Mentioned in the definition of militia, but not in the word police. A police force can be more than just a police force, but a police force is not a militia. For his argument to work all police forces have to be considered militia, not just the ones that are both a police force and a militia.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

What I was saying was domestic peace is not a sufficient argument for private gun ownership. I didn't say guns should be banned, nor did I say they were the problem. What I said is they weren't the solution, in which case that is one less argument for the right to own them.

Bullshit.  You said having gun ownership results in the equal frequency of problems, but more violent.  That sounds like a problem to me.

Flaming_Maniac wrote:

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.

The quote says the following:  It is dumb to quote the current 200+ years of case law to make a point.  I'm telling you it is dumb to ignore it.  Either way, the mean is: ignore the case law because it's not an effective argument.  So I added the "dumb part".  Did it really change your point that much?  NO.

FM wrote:

Where is the proof about original intent though? There has to be a lot of evidence to suggest the law means anything other than what it says. Respecting previous decisions is important, but not to the extent that the law is seriously misapplied over and over and over. As I have said (and you have glossed over) if case law was the end all be all in the interpretation of the Constitution, standards such as separate but equal would still exist.

The proof?  There's shit written about it.  Fucking google it.  I know there's even memoirs from the founding fathers out there.  This is what the Supreme Court references.  Go find it.

Re: Separate but equal - the reversal was due to a conflict between that amendment and others.  It couldn't co-exist without change.  You cite this as an example, perhaps you can prove the 2nd amendment conflicts with other amendments?

FM wrote:

What do you think the Marshall Court would have said if it were told in the future guns would be regulated to the extent that they are now? That individuals aren't allowed to own automatic weapons, or that the laws in D.C. for a time were so that you had to keep a legally owned hand gun locked and unusable, even in your house? The fact that many of these cases are even an issue would be preposterous 200 years ago.

What is the proof against it? What is the proof that the very first interpretation of the Second Amendment is correct?

The Supreme Court has done a lot of things that many would argue are not really in their power. Establishing judicial review and the use of the necessary and proper clause to justify a national bank are a few examples.

http://www.billofrightsinstitute.org/te … mp;catId=7

Here.  The above talks about this issue.  Why did I post a lesson?  I thought it would help you learn.

FM wrote:

Okay, no. "Keep in mind that the reason why you are failing to make this connection is because you believe the only way a militia can form is if it faces a foreign invasion." incorrect. As it is we have a perfectly valid, standing militia. The police still have nothing to do with it. The police are a force of law, not an amateur army.

That's not enough to change my mind.

FM wrote:

...yeah it is. That's what having a codified system of law means. The law is available and readable to everyone. There is some room for interpretation in relation to the intention of the original writers because of the differences in our language, but in no way is it so severe that we can read what we think they meant by it in.

Like I said before.  That is not how the law works.  The case law, decisions, and intent is what interprets the law.  Not the sentence.

FM wrote:

A lot of things carried over from England, a lot didn't. If we were still an English colony that's one thing, but seeing as we have our own Constitution I'd personally rather go by what ours says and not what theirs says.

I thought you wanted something that showed the intent?  The founders were english citizens, and became american.  How is that not relevant?

FM wrote:

The right to life and property is not mentioned at all in the Second Amendment. You can't possibly argue how to read those incredibly broad concepts into those two lines. They could have easily and very clearly written in the right to own guns for reasons of personal defense had that been their intention. You don't just forget to add in something like that.

The didn't forget to put it in the 2nd amendment.  "Life, liberty & pursuit of happiness..."  aka you are looking in the wrong place.

FM wrote:

The Second Amendment is the secondary source to what they wanted, and all the primary sources are long dead. The Amendment is unarguably the best source in determining the meaning of what the Founding Fathers desired in terms of the right to own weapons.

Good god.
http://www.loc.gov/loc/lcib/0010/delegates.html

Start expanding your search.  Good luck.

FM wrote:

Did you even read your own source? It very obviously and fairly demonstrates both sides of the argument. The last lines are

source wrote:

Scholars find many examples in
English and American history for the individual’s right “to
bear arms,” as well as precedents for government regulation
of weapons and weapon use. Such results rarely settle disagreements,
but understanding these concepts can be helpful
in addressing the issue of guns today.

Of course I did.  I'm not naive like others believe there's only one side to the argument.  Hopefully you read the rest of the article too, to understand where I'm coming from.

FM wrote:

I would first like to take a moment to talk about the abortion of the source that you have provided. It contains four paragraphs, and then presents me with a series of questions that I can use as a teaching aid. I wasn't sure myself as to the answer for the second question, but then I realized it was fairly open ended as "Answers may vary."

Purposeful.  Hoping a lesson would be helpful, yet annoying.

Did you read the part about the supreme court decision regarding "you can't bear arms unlawfully"?  My point?  There's a lot of shit that gets considered besides reading one sentence and anally interpreting it.

FM wrote:

It's not about whether or not Oprah is fat. It's about whether she's going to get laid or not. I thought you figured that out by now.

Would you?

Last edited by Pug (2010-02-17 09:22:29)

Damn.  Deleted my mega post.

You win, although you are wrong

Pug wrote:

So this basically illustrates a few things we discussed, 1) I live in Ward Cleaver's neighborhood, 2) I have no doubt if the email went out say at 8 pm, people would be armed in the streets, 3) fucking idiots ruin everything.

People would be armed in the streets to hunt a single small-time burglar...not to die for their country.

Now you're just using the anecdote as an excuse to go back to points I already refuted without any further evidence.

Dude, I have deleted a LOT of long posts in my time that I have re-written. You have my sympathy but not my respect. I'm not going to start this again with all my other points and examples being ignored.