All the gun legislation going down in flames!!!

[ivwshane]

Wow. First off, there are ABSOLUTES in the Bill of Rights. To claim otherwise is gross stupidity.

Actually, quite a few of them are absolutes. Just because a few rights aren't "absolutes" as they are written doesn't mean all the rights are therefore able to be interpreted at a whim by any government official high enough to do so. That horrible thought process is simply horrible to even think.

As for your example of Voter ID laws. How is that an attack on a Constitutional right? You have yet to demonstrate this.

Sure there are some absolute rights but the 2nd amendment isn't one of them.

 

[corwin]

Sure there are some absolute rights but the 2nd amendment isn't one of them.

So where did you get your constitutional law degree?

 

[thraashman]

You have zero ground to stand on with this argument. As been shown by both Miller and Heller. The first part about the militia, is the prefactory part of the 2nd amendment. It's not the objective clause. Grammatically speaking, it does not stand by itself without the objective part. Of which, the objective part does stand on it's own. That second comma was originally a semi colon for a reason until a scribe fucked up in the original copying of the BoR into the Constitution. It was well understood that one couldn't have a militia made up of citizenry if the citizenry could not keep and bear arms individually as an individual right.

The text originally agreed to by the House
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The text originally agreed to by the Senate
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So your crap about a semicolon being a scribe error is bull.

From Miller decision:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

and

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Now the Miller decision supports some of what other posters said, but not you. And in fact does mention that a firearm need to have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

If you're going to lie you should do a better job or do it someone not significantly fucking smarter than you.

 

[HumblePie]

The text originally agreed to by the House
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the People, being the best security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

The text originally agreed to by the Senate
"A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed, but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

So your crap about a semicolon being a scribe error is bull.

From Miller decision:
"In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

and

"The significance attributed to the term Militia appears from the debates in the Convention, the history and legislation of Colonies and States, and the writings of approved commentators. These show plainly enough that the Militia comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. 'A body of citizens enrolled for military discipline.' And further, that ordinarily when called for service these men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time."

Now the Miller decision supports some of what other posters said, but not you. And in fact does mention that a firearm need to have a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia".

If you're going to lie you should do a better job or do it someone not significantly fucking smarter than you.

Argh, you didn't also read heller in conjection with that as well. Which states goes into the fine detail of why the 2nd amendment is an INDIVIDUAL right. I've had this argument with others and shown exactly where, how, and why it's an individual right. It was also shown in both the recent ruling of Heller and many historical past legal precedents.

I am not lying and you are. The part you mentioned about a "reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia" is exactly WHY there is an individual right. Moron.

As for the scribe error.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution

The next day, August 25, the Senate received the Amendment from the House and entered it into the Senate Journal. When the Amendment was transcribed, the semicolon in the religious exemption portion was changed to a comma by the Senate scribe:

That change by the Senate scribe, without prompting, is the error I was referring to. Again, you are a moron.

 

[thraashman]

That change by the Senate scribe, without prompting, is the error I was referring to. Again, you are a moron.

And that's a portion of the Amendment that didn't end up in the final version. The Amendment you reffered to is the final version and you claimed one of those commas was originally a semicolon, WHICH WAS A LIE! And in honor of that. (been wanting to use this for a while)

I'll deal with Heller later, too much to discuss while at work. But it is worth mentioning that Heller was ruled on by the same court make-up that gave what is perhaps the most anti-Constitutional ruling in USSC history in Medellin v Texas.

 

[ivwshane]

So where did you get your constitutional law degree?

The Internet, where did you get yours?

 

[corwin]

The Internet, where did you get yours?

Same place...no wonder we don't agree:awe:

Too bad for you the 2nd has been deemed a PERSONAL right...bummer huh?

 

[HumblePie]

And that's a portion of the Amendment that didn't end up in the final version. The Amendment you reffered to is the final version and you claimed one of those commas was originally a semicolon, WHICH WAS A LIE!

I'll deal with Heller later, too much to discuss while at work. But it is worth mentioning that Heller was ruled on by the same court make-up that gave what is perhaps the most anti-Constitutional ruling in USSC history in Medellin v Texas.

Ugh, go read that. You do know how a semi colon and commas are suppose to work right? The original draftings had commas around individual clauses and the semi colon was separating two separate, by related sentence structure ideas.

Just read this site. It's a bit more informative on the subject as to the 2nd amendment being two distinct clauses and the why of it. Ideally you should read the book.

http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/commas-and-original-version-of-second.html
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Founders' View/index.html

 

[thraashman]

Ugh, go read that. You do know how a semi colon and commas are suppose to work right? The original draftings had commas around individual clauses and the semi colon was separating two separate, by related sentence structure ideas.

Just read this site. It's a bit more informative on the subject as to the 2nd amendment being two distinct clauses and the why of it. Ideally you should read the book.

http://onsecondopinion.blogspot.com/2009/02/commas-and-original-version-of-second.html
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/
http://www.secondamendmentinfo.com/Founders' View/index.html

I promise you I can (and actually have) found just as many links claiming the opposite. But I'm not going to continue this argument because I honestly never even cared about it as it was never my point when bringing up that clause. My point was that corwin said that the right to an abortion never shows up in the Constitution and is based on a court ruling. My point is that the reference to a militia DOES show up in the Constitution and the interpretation of it being an individual right is based on a court ruling. So that your individual right to bear arms is exactly as Constitutional as a woman's right to an abortion. I just got into this argument because of your claims about where a semicolon used to be being incorrect.

I'm done with this militia argument though. There'll always be court rulings we disagree with but regardless of how bad we think they are, when they come from the USSC we are very unlikely to change them. So according to the USSC both an individual right to bear arms and a right to an abortion are guaranteed by the Constitution.

 

[corwin]

So according to the USSC both an individual right to bear arms and a right to an abortion are guaranteed by the Constitution.

Agreed

And I agree with both FWIW...

 

[thraashman]

Agreed

And I agree with both FWIW...

Well dammit man you could've saved me so much trouble then. I should also note I don't consider enhanced background checks to in any way violate the 2nd Amendment. Gun bans, even if I see no need for individual ownership of assault weapons (legal classification assault weapon, not assault rifle), I would consider against the 2nd amendment though it's honestly a bit shaky there since I'm not allowed to own a cruise missile afterall. And I've never put much thought into whether or not gun magazine and clip size limits are Constitutional. I never cared as I never thought it stood a chance at passing.

 

[corwin]

Well dammit man you could've saved me so much trouble then. I should also note I don't consider enhanced background checks to in any way violate the 2nd Amendment. Gun bans, even if I see no need for individual ownership of assault weapons (legal classification assault weapon, not assault rifle), I would consider against the 2nd amendment though it's honestly a bit shaky there since I'm not allowed to own a cruise missile afterall.

I'm torn on background checks, I do think they could lead to a registry of sorts so in principle I can't support them, but I wouldn't sell any of my guns to just anybody, CHL holder or FFL dealer only...and a cruise missile is far and away not even close to a "personal" weapon, what is so badly called an "assault weapon" is a personal weapon so should be protected by the 2nd...

And I've never put much thought into whether or not gun magazine and clip size limits are Constitutional. I never cared as I never thought it stood a chance at passing.

So if you thought it could pass what would be your thoughts then? I think they did have a shot for a short time there, as retarded as it is the emotional level was just about right to have a chance...

 

[HumblePie]

I promise you I can (and actually have) found just as many links claiming the opposite. But I'm not going to continue this argument because I honestly never even cared about it as it was never my point when bringing up that clause. My point was that corwin said that the right to an abortion never shows up in the Constitution and is based on a court ruling. My point is that the reference to a militia DOES show up in the Constitution and the interpretation of it being an individual right is based on a court ruling. So that your individual right to bear arms is exactly as Constitutional as a woman's right to an abortion. I just got into this argument because of your claims about where a semicolon used to be being incorrect.

I'm done with this militia argument though. There'll always be court rulings we disagree with but regardless of how bad we think they are, when they come from the USSC we are very unlikely to change them. So according to the USSC both an individual right to bear arms and a right to an abortion are guaranteed by the Constitution.

No, the difference is that the 2nd amendment DOES state it as an individual right in it's wording.

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.

The first clause does not grammatically stand on its own as a sentence. The second part does. See, read it like this.

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

That makes ZERO sense as a sentence. There is no subject, no predicate, and no verb. It is a worthless statement. However, the second clause as read....

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

Can be read on its own just fine. There we have a clear and easy to read sentence. It works. It's easy to understand. It clearly defines that keeping and bearing arms by PEOPLE is an individual right that shall not be infringed. It's so simple a pre-schooler can follow it.

 

[spidey07]

What I find so funny is Obama and democrats really thought this was a slam dunk and would pass. Were they not paying attention to the following that has gone on the past 4 months? They really are out of touch with most american's views it seems.

1) Record number of gun purchases every month
2) Record number of ammo purchase
3) Record number of NRA donations and membership
4) Every firearm owner and 2nd amedment believer urged (and did) constantly call their reps and senator vowing to defeat them come election time, including primaries, if they don't vote NO on ANY gun control laws

 

[HumblePie]

Well dammit man you could've saved me so much trouble then. I should also note I don't consider enhanced background checks to in any way violate the 2nd Amendment. Gun bans, even if I see no need for individual ownership of assault weapons (legal classification assault weapon, not assault rifle), I would consider against the 2nd amendment though it's honestly a bit shaky there since I'm not allowed to own a cruise missile afterall. And I've never put much thought into whether or not gun magazine and clip size limits are Constitutional. I never cared as I never thought it stood a chance at passing.

I'm fine with expanded background checks, even between private transactions, but ONLY if done the way I suggested before. I'll reiterate how I support "universal" background checks.

1) Make NICS available and free for use to all.
2) Remove "delay" from the response received. It's either Go or No go. And no go better be accurate.
3) Remove the need to record the gun information for the sale.
4) Expand NICS to include things beyond firearms so that a sale made is not automatically assumed to be for firearms only.


If NICS was all that I'm all done for using it for a private transaction. An alternative method would be for marking state ID's or driver licenses. A marking that shows if a person is legal to purchase or not a firearm based upon criminal history or mental health history.

 

[DAPUNISHER]

This is good news. And bonus point for the title not saying the legislation was "shot down".

 

[HumblePie]

This is good news. And bonus point for the title not saying the legislation was "shot down".

That would have been punny right?

 

[thraashman]

No, the difference is that the 2nd amendment DOES state it as an individual right in it's wording.



The first clause does not grammatically stand on its own as a sentence. The second part does. See, read it like this.



That makes ZERO sense as a sentence. There is no subject, no predicate, and no verb. It is a worthless statement. However, the second clause as read....



Can be read on its own just fine. There we have a clear and easy to read sentence. It works. It's easy to understand. It clearly defines that keeping and bearing arms by PEOPLE is an individual right that shall not be infringed. It's so simple a pre-schooler can follow it.

Well here's a college English professor that says you're wrong.
http://articles.latimes.com/2007/mar/22/opinion/oe-baron22
I'd say he knows more about grammar than you.

 

[thraashman]

I'm fine with expanded background checks, even between private transactions, but ONLY if done the way I suggested before. I'll reiterate how I support "universal" background checks.

1) Make NICS available and free for use to all.
2) Remove "delay" from the response received. It's either Go or No go. And no go better be accurate.
3) Remove the need to record the gun information for the sale.
4) Expand NICS to include things beyond firearms so that a sale made is not automatically assumed to be for firearms only.


If NICS was all that I'm all done for using it for a private transaction. An alternative method would be for marking state ID's or driver licenses. A marking that shows if a person is legal to purchase or not a firearm based upon criminal history or mental health history.

I do agree that no additional undue burden should be placed on either the seller or purchaser in a gun transaction by adding a background check. Gun information however I feel should be included in the sale but there is no need to record the information of who the gun was sold to. It should be possible to track if a single seller is responsible for an inordinate amount of guns that end up in crimes. I see no issue with NICS being used for things other than firearms. If there's anything that needs to have a criminal background check then it should all be done via a single system anyway to remove unnecessary redundancy.

 

[MagickMan]

Sure there are some absolute rights but the 2nd amendment isn't one of them.

Oh, you get to choose? That's lovely. Stick to pumping gas, or whatever it is you do.

 

[MagickMan]

So that your individual right to bear arms is exactly as Constitutional as a woman's right to an abortion.

Yes, and?

 

[ivwshane]

Oh, you get to choose? That's lovely. Stick to pumping gas, or whatever it is you do.

Lol, no I don't get to choose, SCOTUS does and guess what they say?

I'm guessing pumping gas is a step above what your job is

 

[Incorruptible]

What I find so funny is Obama and democrats really thought this was a slam dunk and would pass. Were they not paying attention to the following that has gone on the past 4 months? They really are out of touch with most american's views it seems.

1) Record number of gun purchases every month
2) Record number of ammo purchase
3) Record number of NRA donations and membership
4) Every firearm owner and 2nd amedment believer urged (and did) constantly call their reps and senator vowing to defeat them come election time, including primaries, if they don't vote NO on ANY gun control laws

It's always good to see this. Those gun control idiots actually hurt themselves since they helped to increase the amount of guns sold.

The best thing would be to take away their Constitutional rights and teach them a lesson for doing the same to others.

 

[ivwshane]

It's always good to see this. Those gun control idiots actually hurt themselves since they helped to increase the amount of guns sold.

The best thing would be to take away their Constitutional rights and teach them a lesson for doing the same to others.

Lol! Another excellent post by our resident hypocrite. Take away their rights because they don't agree with you.

 

[HumblePie]

I do agree that no additional undue burden should be placed on either the seller or purchaser in a gun transaction by adding a background check. Gun information however I feel should be included in the sale but there is no need to record the information of who the gun was sold to. It should be possible to track if a single seller is responsible for an inordinate amount of guns that end up in crimes. I see no issue with NICS being used for things other than firearms. If there's anything that needs to have a criminal background check then it should all be done via a single system anyway to remove unnecessary redundancy.

The gun tracking is gun registration. Which can then be used to confiscate later. That's why I do not agree with that part.

As for the part of not tracking who you are selling... how the hell would a background check be done otherwise?

NICS should be used for just a national background check period. Make it available to employers, firearm sellers, or anyone that may want to know the criminal past of a person. Maybe a prospective bride checking upon the groom perhaps? Changing NICS to be more of an instant criminal/mental health background check system open to anyone is a FAR better implementation than the current format. And this way checks aren't specific to firearms. Tracking of firearms by the government of law abiding citizens that are legally allowed to own firearms is what I'm against. Far too much historical precedent, which is even in our own country, where any stored registration information of weapons is later used by government officials to confiscate those weapons from law abiding citizens.


As for your comment on English, I can cite dozens of English professors that would call him a putz. Even SCOTUS does