Bob Costas goes on Gun Control tirade during Sunday Night Half-Time Show

[emperus]

Who said anything about being 100% effective? Not me, i'm just pointing out that passing laws and regulations that you know are not going to be obeyed is a exercise in futility.

100% effective means not going to be obeyed. So, again, are you saying because there are murders, burglaries and rapes, all the laws pertaining to them are an "exercise in futility"?

 

[monovillage]

100% effective means not going to be obeyed. So, again, are you saying because there are murders, burglaries and rapes, all the laws pertaining to them are an "exercise in futility"?

Nope, but not all laws and regulations are as justified, common sense, universally appoved or as constitutional, as you well know. Ummm maybe you don't.

 

[TerryMathews]

That's an odd thing to say when it seems pretty clear that I wasn't arguing anything at all in the post you quoted, I was merely trying to understand your argument.

Based on what you're saying here (the bit about needing to amend the constitution, a virtually impossible hurdle to clear), it seems like you feel the weapons I referred to should all be fully available to anyone who would like to purchase them, regarless of criminal history or state of mind.

Is that how you feel?

Why do you say it's an impossible hurdle? It's happened what 26-27 times?

I feel that the founding fathers intended for us to have access to modern weapons of war, in order to overthrow our government should it become oppressive. I think they knew if the British had kept guns away from them that they never could have overthrown the crown here.

If you're unsure of their intent I suggest you read the Federalist papers.

If you feel that the RKBA is out dated, again I invite you to get it changed. We don't just ignore parts of it because we feel their antiquated. Look at the 13th for another good example.

 

[HypX]

I actually don't have a problem with pushing for the repeal or alteration of the 2nd amendment. The challenges in pulling it off should not undermine the validity of the idea. Certainly, more people should actually seriously consider it instead of dismissing it.

 

[TerryMathews]

I actually don't have a problem with pushing for the repeal or alteration of the 2nd amendment. The challenges in pulling it off should not undermine the validity of the idea. Certainly, more people should actually seriously consider it instead of dismissing it.

I don't care for the idea but I like it a whole hell of a lot better than just ignoring it. There are three methods to amending the constitution and one is basically a popular referendum. If enough people want to do away with the RKBA v it can be done.

 

[emperus]

Nope, but not all laws and regulations are as justified, common sense, universally appoved or as constitutional, as you well know. Ummm maybe you don't.

Yes and some cats are spotted and others are striped. What is your point? Are you arguing it is not justified, nor common sense, not universally approved or not constitutional? And if so why not?

You seem to have changed your argument from the last couple of posts.

 

[emperus]

I actually don't have a problem with pushing for the repeal or alteration of the 2nd amendment. The challenges in pulling it off should not undermine the validity of the idea. Certainly, more people should actually seriously consider it instead of dismissing it.

I don't even believe it needs to be appealed. Just read in it's entirety Esp., the well regulated part.

 

[TerryMathews]

I don't even believe it needs to be appealed. Just read in it's entirety Esp., the well regulated part.

Nowhere does it say that arms are to be regulated. In fact, it says explicitly that they are not. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says that well regulated militias are good for the state. It doesn't say they have to be, or who should regulate.

 

[monovillage]

Yes and some cats are spotted and others are striped. What is your point? Are you arguing it is not justified, nor common sense, not universally approved or not constitutional? And if so why not?
You seem to have changed your argument from the last couple of posts.

What is not justified? My earlier point was that passing laws that won't be obeyed is an exercise in futility and compared bad gun laws (10 round magazines) to prohibition and marijuana laws. You're the one trying to compare laws against murder and rape to nonsensical gun regulations.

 

[emperus]

Nowhere does it say that arms are to be regulated. In fact, it says explicitly that they are not. "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."

It says that well regulated militias are good for the state. It doesn't say they have to be, or who should regulate.

Terry, it's one sentence.

 

[emperus]

What is not justified? My earlier point was that passing laws that won't be obeyed is an exercise in futility and compared bad gun laws (10 round magazines) to prohibition and marijuana laws. You're the one trying to compare laws against murder and rape to nonsensical gun regulations.

Mono, you argued that passing laws that won't be obeyed is an exorcize in futility. But just because a law isn't obeyed doesn't make it futile to pass. I gave the example of murder and rape laws to make my point. You can throw in speeding laws as well and a number of laws people don't always follow but serve a societal purpose.

Prohibition and marijuana laws were/are bad laws, not just because people didn't/don't obey them.

 

[TerryMathews]

Terry, it's one sentence.

It's two clauses separated by a comma.

 

[Blackjack200]

Why do you say it's an impossible hurdle? It's happened what 26-27 times?

I feel that the founding fathers intended for us to have access to modern weapons of war, in order to overthrow our government should it become oppressive. I think they knew if the British had kept guns away from them that they never could have overthrown the crown here.

If you're unsure of their intent I suggest you read the Federalist papers.

If you feel that the RKBA is out dated, again I invite you to get it changed. We don't just ignore parts of it because we feel their antiquated. Look at the 13th for another good example.

Why do you keep dancing around the question I'm asking you? I'm not looking for a discussion about constitutional law or the practicality of getting it changed, I'm asking what you think our public policy should be.

If we imagine all weapons being on a spectrum of lethality, the lower end being a butter knife, and the upper end being thermonuclear weapons, is there a point on that spectrum where the weapons are so lethal you don't think they should be available to people? If so, where is that point?

 

[HypX]

I don't care for the idea but I like it a whole hell of a lot better than just ignoring it. There are three methods to amending the constitution and one is basically a popular referendum. If enough people want to do away with the RKBA v it can be done.

Agreed with the second half of the post.

I don't even believe it needs to be appealed. Just read in it's entirety Esp., the well regulated part.

Agreed with that too.

Repealing the 2nd amendment will open up the classes of restrictions that can be placed, but the amendment does not mean no restrictions can be put into place.

 

[emperus]

This is the 2nd amendment.

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

It reads to me.

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

How do you read it?

 

[TerryMathews]

Why do you keep dancing around the question I'm asking you? I'm not looking for a discussion about constitutional law or the practicality of getting it changed, I'm asking what you think our public policy should be.

If we imagine all weapons being on a spectrum of lethality, the lower end being a butter knife, and the upper end being thermonuclear weapons, is there a point on that spectrum where the weapons are so lethal you don't think they should be available to people? If so, where is that point?

I honestly think the regulation is pointless. There are privately owned tanks, APCs, fighter jets, and bombers. How many have been used to kill people? 0.

922o only made machine guns more expensive. They are available. Yet the only time in history a machine gun was used in a mass murder, it was by a cop with his duty weapon.

Your talk about nuclear weapons is a joke. The people with the resources to build or obtain them aren't going to be restricted by US Code.

 

[schneiderguy]

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not nullify the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly prevents the Federal government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. The removal of the amendment does not grant them the right to do so.

 

[TerryMathews]

This is the 2nd amendment.



It reads to me.

Because a well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed.

How do you read it?

I read it as two parts, a prefatory clause and an operstive clause.

If I write: My car is out of gas, I am taking yours to Rite Aid.

Am I limited to driving your car only when my car is out of gas?

 

[TerryMathews]

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not nullify the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly prevents the Federal government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. The removal of the amendment does not grant them the right to do so.

National Federation of Independent Business v Sebelius grants the federal government practically unlimited taxation powers. The interstate commerce clause would allow them to effectively ban manufacture.

Without the 2nd there are many more opportunities to ban gun ownership. Look at what happened in DC.

 

[HypX]

The repeal of the 2nd Amendment would not nullify the right to keep and bear arms.

The 2nd Amendment explicitly prevents the Federal government from infringing upon the right to keep and bear arms. The removal of the amendment does not grant them the right to do so.

The repeal of the 2nd will eliminate any ability of the SCOTUS to stop the government, or any state, from doing what they will on this matter. Although it is possible for the government to choose to not do anything, they would be allowed to regulate as they could any other form of commerce, making the RKBA effectively dead. EDIT: beaten.

 

[schneiderguy]

The repeal of the 2nd will eliminate any ability of the SCOTUS to stop the government, or any state, from doing what they will on this matter. Although it is possible for the government to choose to not do anything, they would be allowed to regulate as they could any other form of commerce, making the RKBA effectively dead. EDIT: beaten.

The 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states until two years ago and the right to keep and bear arms is not "effectively dead" even in those states that do not have a RKBA clause in their constitution.

The point of the 2A is not to grand the right to keep and bear arms, but as a last ditch measure to keep the government from infringing upon what the people who wrote the constitution clearly viewed as an extremely important civil right. The government is no more justified in infringing upon that right whether or not the 2A exists or not.

I don't understand why supposedly left-wing "progressives" want to stomp on civil rights in this area. Supporting restrictions on civilian gun ownership is a right-wing view.

 

[etrigan420]

I read it as two parts, a prefatory clause and an operstive clause.

If I write: My car is out of gas, I am taking yours to Rite Aid.

Am I limited to driving your car only when my car is out of gas?

No, but you'd sound like an idiot if you went around saying "I am taking yours to Rite Aid" like it is it's own, independent idea.

The first clause goes to context.

 

[schneiderguy]

No, but you'd sound like an idiot if you went around saying "I am taking yours to Rite Aid" like it is it's own, independent idea.

The first clause goes to context.

Even if we suppose that the second clause is connected to the first:

1. Every able bodied male between age 18-45 is part of the militia (see the Militia Act of 1903).

2. "Well regulated" = well trained/well armed (see "Concerning the Militia" in the Federalist Papers, by Alexander Hamilton).

And since we're all about equal rights nowadays, the right to keep and bear arms would be extended to everyone else under the 14th Amendment, since having arbitrary standards for being able to exercise a civil right is unconstitutional.

 

[HypX]

The 2nd Amendment did not apply to the states until two years ago and the right to keep and bear arms is not "effectively dead" even in those states that do not have a RKBA clause in their constitution.

The point of the 2A is not to grand the right to keep and bear arms, but as a last ditch measure to keep the government from infringing upon what the people who wrote the constitution clearly viewed as an extremely important civil right. The government is no more justified in infringing upon that right whether or not the 2A exists or not.

That's an ideal. It does not really apply to the real world. If the SCOTUS interprets the constitution as not having a RKBA, and will not stop any type of firearm restriction from being passed, then there's little any individual can do other than simply accept it. That will almost certainly be the case under a repeal situation. Even if the 2nd isn't repealed, the courts still have significant latitude to interpret the law, although they will be probably forced to give some degree of firearm freedom. What we saw in the last two years is the SCOTUS giving a stronger interpretation that use to have.

I don't understand why supposedly left-wing "progressives" want to stomp on civil rights in this area. Supporting restrictions on civilian gun ownership is a right-wing view.

Progressivism is not necessary libertarianism. A lot of it implies forcing people to make sacrifices or restricting certain behaviors if it means it benefits the common good. Tobacco laws, traffic and car safety laws, worker safety laws, etc., all fall under the category of progressivism. The label is flexible and changes from era to era however. Lately, probably due to the extreme concentration of liberals into large cities, gun rights is rapidly disappearing from being associated with progressivism and will probably become a purely right wing one.

 

[Blackjack200]

I honestly think the regulation is pointless. There are privately owned tanks, APCs, fighter jets, and bombers. How many have been used to kill people? 0.

922o only made machine guns more expensive. They are available. Yet the only time in history a machine gun was used in a mass murder, it was by a cop with his duty weapon.

Your talk about nuclear weapons is a joke. The people with the resources to build or obtain them aren't going to be restricted by US Code.

Ok, so get rid of all regulation (because it is pointless) of machine guns, grenades, large caliber weapons, chemical/biological agents.

Right?