Question of gun rights........

[fskimospy]

Are you talking about Fed powers making more and more grabs for power and Sheeple going on about Sheeple lives? It's like you think some significant % of the voting demographic actually takes time out of their lives each and every day to be personally up on the goings on of their Gov and holds them accountable. In short: Bombastically absurd. To then further your suggestion, you think that the very Gov powers making those power grabs from the Sheeple are immune from the indoctrination and compulsions they themselves have developed under. Do you actually read what you write? Did you inherit some kind of SJW/Socialist macro from Macro and tweak it for your needs?

This is word salad. Are you feeling okay?

The absolute pot/kettle analogy here is so strong as to completely break the space/time binds that hold the universe together. Nick Nick'ing about Nick'ing, LOL...

lolwut.

 

[shady28]

You're right good friend chucky, I'm sure the country just suffered an eight decade long mass delusion where they thought perfectly clear wording meant something else.

Spin, spin, spin!

If you look at the actual Miller case, you'll find 3 things -

1 : The case was never decided, it was remanded to a district court that no longer had a plaintiff with standing (one was dead, one plea bargained).

2 : The case involved interstate trade, which is federally regulated.

3 : The registration of the Firearms Act of 1934 which that case is based on, was ruled unconstitutional in 1968 (this is not 8 decades).


What's frankly funny about all this is, the Federal power grab from the states that you lefties advocate eviscerated your ability to do what you want (control guns).

A strict interpretation would actually give you most of what you want, but that's not enough for the left. You could have a situation where the only firearm you can own is manufactured in your own state if allowed by your state, and if you bring that firearm to a state that doesn't allow firearms they could jail you (and possibly the fed could jail you as well).

That's state power to regulate firearms and federal interstate trade regulation power, both in the constitution. But state power has been usurped over time, so now its all or nothing.

So you get nothing.

 

[momeNt]

If it was ever a collective right, what process at the time of the bill's passage ever would have given any notion that it was collective?

Did a militia ID card proving participation in a collective need to be shown at the time of purchase? Did some sort of group affiliation need to be maintained in order to maintain ownership of the arms? Was there an administrative office formed that maintained a list of official militia collectives?

Derp.

 

[Darwin333]

No, the original wording of the second amendment was written by him and it was then substantially modified by House and Senate on its way to ratification. So yes, who exactly wrote it is quite unclear, haha. All that aside, if anything it would be the intent of the members of the House and Senate that would matter.

If by 'upheld' you mean it has been affirmed as some sort of right or another repeatedly throughout history, sure. In fact the second amendment is so unclear it has sparked reams of debate and grammatical parsing to try and figure out whether it represented a collective right or an individual one. Federal courts until recently generally fell on the side of it representing a collective right, although that changed with the Heller decision. (further showing how ambiguous it is!)

Funny that the founders didn't seem to fuck up the language anywhere else....

Does anyone argue that in the following text the word "people" refers to anything but individual people?

"The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized."

 

[LegendKiller]

Yeah, what's eight decades or so between friends. I think that should put to rest the idea that there was no ambiguity in the wording.

Against the backdrop of 250+ years and the existence of the Republic and it's basic foundations? 8 decades is nothing.

 

[fskimospy]

If you look at the actual Miller case, you'll find 3 things -

1 : The case was never decided, it was remanded to a district court that no longer had a plaintiff with standing (one was dead, one plea bargained).

2 : The case involved interstate trade, which is federally regulated.

3 : The registration of the Firearms Act of 1934 which that case is based on, was ruled unconstitutional in 1968 (this is not 8 decades).

I'm not really interested in exactly how long the federal courts generally interpreted it as a collective right. If you have a problem with the number, take it up with Legendkiller.

What's frankly funny about all this is, the Federal power grab from the states that you lefties advocate eviscerated your ability to do what you want (control guns).

A strict interpretation would actually give you most of what you want, but that's not enough for the left. You could have a situation where the only firearm you can own is manufactured in your own state if allowed by your state, and if you bring that firearm to a state that doesn't allow firearms they could jail you (and possibly the fed could jail you as well).

That's state power to regulate firearms and federal interstate trade regulation power, both in the constitution. But state power has been usurped over time, so now its all or nothing.

So you get nothing.

I think textualist and original intent interpretations of the constitution are stupid all of the time, not just when it's convenient for my preferred policy outcome. Gun rights are pretty far down on my list of things that I really care about, so meh. As I've said before, the research shows that owning a gun for personal protection is probably a dumb idea, but people are free to be dumb.

 

[fskimospy]

Against the backdrop of 250+ years and the existence of the Republic and it's basic foundations? 8 decades is nothing.

I'm not sure if you know how old the Constitution is, haha. Regardless, the idea that 8 decades is nothing is frankly stupid and you know it, especially when arguing that there is no ambiguity in the second amendment.

If there's no ambiguity there wouldn't be 8 decades where people thought differently. (not to mention that the current interpretation is the result of a 5-4 ruling). It's a silly idea and you should stop trying to use it.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm not really interested in exactly how long the federal courts generally interpreted it as a collective right. If you have a problem with the number, take it up with Legendkiller.



I think textualist and original intent interpretations of the constitution are stupid all of the time, not just when it's convenient for my preferred policy outcome. Gun rights are pretty far down on my list of things that I really care about, so meh. As I've said before, the research shows that owning a gun for personal protection is probably a dumb idea, but people are free to be dumb.

Of course you have no problem with it. And I don't think it was the entire 80 years. But hey, I guess since we never had gay marriage or women voting or black voting or civil rights, you would have been just fine not allowing those, eh? Because what's a couple hundred years of shitty civil rights interpretations between friends? Denying rights is great as long as it was done for a long enough period of time.

 

[LegendKiller]

I'm not sure if you know how old the Constitution is, haha. Regardless, the idea that 8 decades is nothing is frankly stupid and you know it, especially when arguing that there is no ambiguity in the second amendment.

If there's no ambiguity there wouldn't be 8 decades where people thought differently. (not to mention that the current interpretation is the result of a 5-4 ruling). It's a silly idea and you should stop trying to use it.

The foundation of the idea of the right to bear arms for a free republic fighting against a tyrannical leader started what? 1773? Ok, if you want to be a little bitch about it (your only recourse since you have no constitutional or legal ground to stand on) we will say almost 243 years. Does not rounding to 250 make your argument stronger? No, it just makes you look like a little bitch.

 

[fskimospy]

Of course you have no problem with it. And I don't think it was the entire 80 years. But hey, I guess since we never had gay marriage or women voting or black voting or civil rights, you would have been just fine not allowing those, eh? Because what's a couple hundred years of shitty civil rights interpretations between friends? Denying rights is great as long as it was done for a long enough period of time.

Try to stay on topic. We are discussing whether or not the second amendment is ambiguous. You declared it was not, so I provided you with a large amount of both logic and evidence to the contrary. Whether or not the second amendment is ambiguous has nothing, -literally nothing- to do with someone's position on civil rights.

Once we've cleared up the misunderstanding that the second amendment is unambiguous I'm perfectly happy to move on to discussing civil rights.

 

[Moonbeam]

eskimospy has suggested that the meaning of the 2nd has long been debated in the courts and that the interpretation will likely change with the times and the nature of the majority on the Supreme Court, tortured dictionary readings etc etc etc.

In post #20 I proposed a reason for this, utilitarian practicality, the reality that changes in culture and technology thrust upon us. As with any understanding and adjustment to changing conditions it will be liberals that lead it and conservatives that resist. I am suggesting, then, that the weight of the population being urban rather than rural, the number of folk whose lives are threatened by guns outweigh the number who see them as protection, especially from the phantom fears of a past era. I call them Phantom fears, not because a military take over of the government is impossible but that it is essentially a fait accompli. The military industrial complex owns the country and an armed coup is not necessary. Many of these same arms suppliers that provide the military with weapons, have a side business supplying arms to the people. The most sophisticated way to rob people is to scare them and sell them a phantom fear and a phantom relief from that fear. For every sucker born,,,,,, and all that.

But we always create what we fear and the one of the latest trend in that direction is the fear of guns.

Look at the properties of fear. The greater the fear the greater the need to prevent it. The result is an arms race, a race the people long ago lost to the police and the military. The fear of an armed people has created swat teams, thermal imaging, head shot sniping etc etc etc. Couple that with the need for surveillance, data mining, profiling, etc etc etc.

Another result of fear is rage, the go to emotion that blocks fear from happening, its other face.

And all the time there is only one real path to safety and personal security, to live among people who do not want to harm you.

The antidote to rage and fear is love and you learn to love by being loved. And there is only one reliable person who can love you and its yourself. It was self love we have all lost and it's the only way back. The toilet bowl of self hate is flushing so better get busy.

 

[Moonbeam]

The foundation of the idea of the right to bear arms for a free republic fighting against a tyrannical leader started what? 1773? Ok, if you want to be a little bitch about it (your only recourse since you have no constitutional or legal ground to stand on) we will say almost 243 years. Does not rounding to 250 make your argument stronger? No, it just makes you look like a little bitch.

My point was that whenever it started, it died with modern technology. The people are not allowed personally to keep up with the federal military. Your claim for why guns should be legal is dead and the power of persuasive arguments that they should be illegal are growing day by day.

 

[chucky2]

This is word salad. Are you feeling okay?

lolwut.

Poor Nick, unable to Nick further... :'(

 

[LegendKiller]

My point was that whenever it started, it died with modern technology. The people are not allowed personally to keep up with the federal military. Your claim for why guns should be legal is dead and the power of persuasive arguments that they should be illegal are growing day by day.

All technology was "modern" compared to the relative weapons in "common use" at the time. That is the entire fucking point. That the common person didn't have ready access to heavy field artillery or massive warships didn't matter, they were technologically equivalent, or even somewhat superior to the British on the field on the soldier level.

In the case of the Pennsylvania rifle armed riflemen they had better weapons than the average British soldier's common smooth bore musket.

 

[Caravaggio]

*Popcorn*

I'm not planning on heading to Oregon and joining the clueless fake Patriots, though.

Unless "The People" are buying F-35's to rabbit hunt these days, it's a bit dated.

Good to know.

Given that the most common ultimate use of a legitimately held US handgun is for the suicide of its owner, I was wondering if your photo in post 26 was a covert plea for help?

Oh, BTW the 'clueless' militia are not buying F 35's, but they are being sold to the Middle East. Is that wise?

 

[buckshot24]

Yeah, what's eight decades or so between friends. I think that should put to rest the idea that there was no ambiguity in the wording.

Nutters who quibble about the wording isn't evidence that it is ambiguous.

 

[SlowSpyder]

The 2nd amendment doesn't mean we have the right to bear arms? Ok, someone should let DC know that all the sitting presidents, men and women of congress, all senators, judges, even the ones who wrote the constitution itself have been wrong the last couple centuries... we just misinterpreted it. Thankfully we have arm-chair constitution-drafting forefathers on the internet to set things straight.

 

[Moonbeam]

All technology was "modern" compared to the relative weapons in "common use" at the time. That is the entire fucking point. That the common person didn't have ready access to heavy field artillery or massive warships didn't matter, they were technologically equivalent, or even somewhat superior to the British on the field on the soldier level.

In the case of the Pennsylvania rifle armed riflemen they had better weapons than the average British soldier's common smooth bore musket.

Did the Native Americans have a right to bear arms? Do you really think the average American citizen today is better armed than the American military. How did the Iraqi Army do against them? It seems to me you must be engaged in some sort of internal rationalizations. Seems to me that the only real impediment to a coup by the military is the absence of the wish for it.

Perhaps you don't like the fact that the motive you state for why we have the second amendment has been rendered ridiculous, both in reality and in the minds of the people.

It strikes me that we have had a compromise of opinions on the 2nd for many many years now. You can't own machine guns and in California we are limited to 10 shot clips. So it would seem that the fear of the individual madman killing multiple scores of people, hiding behind his right to bear arms, is already beginning to be restricted. How do you think a lead lined gun that fires a single plutonium bb would go over legally? Not too well, I would suspect.

 

[fskimospy]

Nutters who quibble about the wording isn't evidence that it is ambiguous.

Ooh it looks like we have another thread where buckshot declares inconvenient facts as not evidence. How fun for everyone!

 

[LegendKiller]

Did the Native Americans have a right to bear arms? Do you really think the average American citizen today is better armed than the American military. How did the Iraqi Army do against them? It seems to me you must be engaged in some sort of internal rationalizations. Seems to me that the only real impediment to a coup by the military is the absence of the wish for it.

Perhaps you don't like the fact that the motive you state for why we have the second amendment has been rendered ridiculous, both in reality and in the minds of the people.

It strikes me that we have had a compromise of opinions on the 2nd for many many years now. You can't own machine guns and in California we are limited to 10 shot clips. So it would seem that the fear of the individual madman killing multiple scores of people, hiding behind his right to bear arms, is already beginning to be restricted. How do you think a lead lined gun that fires a single plutonium bb would go over legally? Not too well, I would suspect.

The rationalization you use for the reduction in rights is to save the ~5k of non-gang, non-crime, non-suicide deaths per year which may or may not have occurred anyway without a gun. Furthermore, the rationalization you use is a reduction in homicides, which hasn't been supported by Australia or other countries, nor have violent crimes committed through other means.

So that's your rationalization, eliminate rights for a few thousand deaths which will likely occur anyway. You could require ignition interlock on every single vehicle to probably nearly 100% eliminate DWI related accidents and fatalities and save more lives. How about that?

What about banning smoking. There's millions of lung cancer and other smoking related deaths eliminated. What about Bloomberg's Big Gulp ban, or shit, just ban sugar and require a minimum of 1hr of exercise a day, subject to jail time. You'll prevent millions upon millions of diabetes or obesity related fatalities.

Just how far would you be willing to go?

And on the topic of defense against governments (including our own), the size of the US military is pretty small compared to the size of the armed US population. 100mm people fighting against the government, not concentrated in one space, would be very difficult to battle, even with modern weapons. Especially considering various laws. It wouldn't be nearly as clean as the Civil War since the differences are ideological, not really geological.

The notion may be somewhat far fetched, but the idea that we would go quietly as herded sheep would be gone.

 

[Kwatt]

And on the topic of defense against governments (including our own), the size of the US military is pretty small compared to the size of the armed US population. 100mm people fighting against the government, not concentrated in one space, would be very difficult to battle, even with modern weapons. Especially considering various laws. It wouldn't be nearly as clean as the Civil War since the differences are ideological, not really geological.

I would like to believe that the entire US military would not go to war against the US population. Especially in violation of the Constitution that they swore a oath to protect. Maybe I am being naive...

Because the Presidents all take a similar oath and several have tried to violate it.

.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Perhaps you don't like the fact that the motive you state for why we have the second amendment has been rendered ridiculous, both in reality and in the minds of the people.

That was what the militia? In your definition what is the militia today?

 

[Bart*Simpson]

Fascinating! I find it difficult personally to imagine the definition of a militia as every single person in the US.

Why not? Haven't you paid attention to the Middle East where every person who can carry a weapon is a member of a militia?

Prior to the advent of standing armies in the 1700's even the armies of Europe were essentially militias where the soldiers reported for duty only when they were needed.

It's not a radical concept.

 

[Bart*Simpson]

I would like to believe that the entire US military would not go to war against the US population. Especially in violation of the Constitution that they swore a oath to protect. Maybe I am being naive...

Because the Presidents all take a similar oath and several have tried to violate it.

.

 

[CaptainGoodnight]

Why not? Haven't you paid attention to the Middle East where every person who can carry a weapon is a member of a militia?

Prior to the advent of standing armies in the 1700's even the armies of Europe were essentially militias where the soldiers reported for duty only when they were needed.

It's not a radical concept.

Wonder what moonbeam things of the regulation of hobbyist drones in the USA? They are being used in great effect by ISIS and the ilk.