In order to ensure that this thread continues to meet TL standards and follows the proper guidelines, we will be enforcing the rules in the OP more strictly. Be sure to give them a re-read to refresh your memory! The vast majority of you are contributing in a healthy way, keep it up!
NOTE: When providing a source, explain why you feel it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion if it's not obvious. Also take note that unsubstantiated tweets/posts meant only to rekindle old arguments can result in a mod action.
On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote: I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Could mod delete this. I'm on my phone and fucked it up.
On January 17 2014 03:58 Introvert wrote: I find it very odd that wanting the rules to be followed constitutes a "religious worship of the Constitution." Do you value the first amendment? How about the fourth amendment? I know the left really doesn't care about 9th/10th amendments, but what about the first eight? Would you prefer they be followed? The appointments clause and the clause explaining the duty of the president to faithfully execute the laws are as much a part of the Constitution as the Bill of Rights.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
Yes, state militias. We should start making it mandatory again! "Every able bodied male of ages..." It would certainly make people less afraid of guns.
No one said anything about unlimited rights. Your statement was
"Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?"
This simple, broad post indicated to me that you thought the second amendment was an obsolete amendment, since we no longer use militias for most things.
I disagree anyway, I just gave you one excellent example that follows from perfectly logical reasoning. The point I made was that maybe one day we'll need a militia again, but with all the gun laws, they won't have enough guns! That's absurd.
I don't know what you mean by "outside sources." Certainly for core parts of their argument, using Blackstone or Story is hardly a "outside" source?
"Assumptions" about the time of the ratification are pretty helpful. Do you think if you went back and say, in 1800, tried to tell people that if they weren't or had never been in a militia you could take their guns? Do you think that would fly? I do find your position incredibly hard to understand historically. Like Scalia's opinion made clear, the document codifies a right already thought to be in existence at that time. Maybe you should read it again. Without any historical context your position sounds reasonable, but upon understanding the time period, it should become clear that it's wrong. never mind the fact that every other amendment (except the 9th and 10th) all refer to individual rights, and not the rights of institutions.
But this may be the most worthless argument to have. I don't know how much you've actually studied of the anti-gun control side, but I doubt it would change anything.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
Yes, state militias. We should start making it mandatory again! "Every able bodied male of ages..." It would certainly make people less afraid of guns.
No one said anything about unlimited rights. Your statement was
"Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?"
This simple, broad post indicated to me that you thought the second amendment was an obsolete amendment, since we no longer use militias for most things.
I disagree anyway, I just gave you one excellent example that follows from perfectly logical reasoning. The point I made was that maybe one day we'll need a militia again, but with all the gun laws, they won't have enough guns! That's absurd.
I don't know what you mean by "outside sources." Certainly for core parts of their argument, using Blackstone or Story is hardly a "outside" source?
"Assumptions" about the time of the ratification are pretty helpful. Do you think if you went back and say, in 1800, tried to tell people that if they weren't or had never been in a militia you could take their guns? Do you think that would fly? I do find your position incredibly hard to understand historically. Like Scalia's opinion made clear, the document codifies a right already thought to be in existence at that time. Maybe you should read it again. Without any historical context your position sounds reasonable, but upon understanding the time period, it should become clear that it's wrong. never mind the fact that every other amendment (except the 9th and 10th) all refer to individual rights, and not the rights of institutions.
But this may be the most worthless argument to have. I don't know how much you've actually studied of the anti-gun control side, but I doubt it would change anything.
The key mindset-difference is found here
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
The framers were definitely against tyranny and feared first and foremost tyranny of government over its citizens. That is why private gun ownership was expressly written (it's doubtful the constitution would ever be ratified lacking that). Take if from Jefferson, "When the people fear their government, there is tyranny; when the government fears the people, there is liberty." Or from the oft-neglected father of the bill of rights, George Mason, "I ask sir, who is the militia? It is the whole people...To disarm the people, that is the best and most effective way to enslave them..." It's so harmonious with the rest of the Bill of Rights in its defense of the individual against a tyrannical government.
On January 19 2014 08:23 Danglars wrote: Democratic Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid said that Obamacare was absolutely a step towards single payer. It's no big secret that that's the goal. It wasn't so politically workable during Obamacare drafting, considering how many vulnerable Dems were in Congress, but it may be in the future. Ads along the lines of, "We gave insurers the chance to give fair private insurance to all, and they screwed up. Now, let's have government be the payer, and *not* you!"
tactical move to sneak single-payer in through your backdoor when you're all sick and vulnerable or insurance industry bailout?
We’ve had a bailout for bankers and now the principle seems to be extended to the insurance industry. As Randy Wray and I discussed in a recent paper, the health care bill just signed into law entrenches the centrality of private health insurance companies and contain no serious proposals to limit costs.
this is probably old news for you silly yanks, but i thought the articles were interesting. i unlocked the second one for yous. it's gone in two days. yee haw.
The entire process has been so overt in the big picture that "sneak" is hardly the word. Reid wants it and argues that PPACA is a step towards it. Obama in his Senate days said he wanted it. Piece together enough speeches and it's pretty clear he still wants it.
Bailout it isn't. Obviously it gained some support from insurance companies who eye all these new people they can now sign up. Put another way, opposing it during the crafting phase might've led to an even worse regulatory structure that would then be law, so support it and try to lobby for good provisions. Not in the same class as the TARPs used for financial sector and car companies or fannie/freddie.
darn it, if i had fashioned an obama-stabbing dagger from partisan connotations in a selection of clips of his public appearances instead...
i take it you did not read any of the articles... or maybe you did and this is your response. i can't tell.
On January 18 2014 15:59 zlefin wrote: Is it just me, or did roswell just cite an article which repudiates his claim?
Indeed, the article claims that global warming will likely accelerate in the near future, citing the past trend of a similar "plateau" that occurred during the 1950s-1970s followed by a period of rapid warming.
What? No, I put that for the plateau, since for some reason people still think the earth getting exponentially warmer every year. My point was the NYT and many others now need to go into damage control. There were no models that predicted this plateau, so why should we believe them now? Polluting IS horrible for the environment, but global warming has always been lying for the "greater good." Albeit, smaller lies. It's like those "one in 4 kids in america are starving and dont know where they will get a meal" campaign. We shouldn't ignore it, since for the most part scientists agree, but just witch hunting or removing competition for the green earth-friendly products is pretty pathetic.
No, it's just annoying to have those hypocrites wave their constitutions in to the cameras (which they always carry around in their pockets!) when it comes to the 2nd, 9th and 10th amendment, while on the other hand usually shitting over the first, 4th, 8th, 14th, 15th amendments and probably a few others as well.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
Yes, state militias. We should start making it mandatory again! "Every able bodied male of ages..." It would certainly make people less afraid of guns.
No one said anything about unlimited rights. Your statement was
"Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?"
This simple, broad post indicated to me that you thought the second amendment was an obsolete amendment, since we no longer use militias for most things.
I disagree anyway, I just gave you one excellent example that follows from perfectly logical reasoning. The point I made was that maybe one day we'll need a militia again, but with all the gun laws, they won't have enough guns! That's absurd.
I don't know what you mean by "outside sources." Certainly for core parts of their argument, using Blackstone or Story is hardly a "outside" source?
"Assumptions" about the time of the ratification are pretty helpful. Do you think if you went back and say, in 1800, tried to tell people that if they weren't or had never been in a militia you could take their guns? Do you think that would fly? I do find your position incredibly hard to understand historically. Like Scalia's opinion made clear, the document codifies a right already thought to be in existence at that time. Maybe you should read it again. Without any historical context your position sounds reasonable, but upon understanding the time period, it should become clear that it's wrong. never mind the fact that every other amendment (except the 9th and 10th) all refer to individual rights, and not the rights of institutions.
But this may be the most worthless argument to have. I don't know how much you've actually studied of the anti-gun control side, but I doubt it would change anything.
You do realize both of your definitions of what a "militia" constitutes are incorrect in terms of current jurisprudence.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Also using English common law and contemporary commentaries on English common law isn't 'outside sources' for American law, as American law has English common law as a basis as a result of having once been a colony and having broken away. One of the benefits of having broken away is that we got to write down a constitution instead of languishing in a system where an all-powerful parliament can decide, at a whim, to do anything they want to do, even if it abridges freedoms and rights.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
Yes, state militias. We should start making it mandatory again! "Every able bodied male of ages..." It would certainly make people less afraid of guns.
No one said anything about unlimited rights. Your statement was
"Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?"
This simple, broad post indicated to me that you thought the second amendment was an obsolete amendment, since we no longer use militias for most things.
I disagree anyway, I just gave you one excellent example that follows from perfectly logical reasoning. The point I made was that maybe one day we'll need a militia again, but with all the gun laws, they won't have enough guns! That's absurd.
I don't know what you mean by "outside sources." Certainly for core parts of their argument, using Blackstone or Story is hardly a "outside" source?
"Assumptions" about the time of the ratification are pretty helpful. Do you think if you went back and say, in 1800, tried to tell people that if they weren't or had never been in a militia you could take their guns? Do you think that would fly? I do find your position incredibly hard to understand historically. Like Scalia's opinion made clear, the document codifies a right already thought to be in existence at that time. Maybe you should read it again. Without any historical context your position sounds reasonable, but upon understanding the time period, it should become clear that it's wrong. never mind the fact that every other amendment (except the 9th and 10th) all refer to individual rights, and not the rights of institutions.
But this may be the most worthless argument to have. I don't know how much you've actually studied of the anti-gun control side, but I doubt it would change anything.
You do realize both of your definitions of what a "militia" constitutes are incorrect in terms of current jurisprudence.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Also using English common law and contemporary commentaries on English common law isn't 'outside sources' for American law, as American law has English common law as a basis as a result of having once been a colony and having broken away. One of the benefits of having broken away is that we got to write down a constitution instead of languishing in a system where an all-powerful parliament can decide, at a whim, to do anything they want to do, even if it abridges freedoms and rights.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
Yes, state militias. We should start making it mandatory again! "Every able bodied male of ages..." It would certainly make people less afraid of guns.
No one said anything about unlimited rights. Your statement was
"Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?"
This simple, broad post indicated to me that you thought the second amendment was an obsolete amendment, since we no longer use militias for most things.
I disagree anyway, I just gave you one excellent example that follows from perfectly logical reasoning. The point I made was that maybe one day we'll need a militia again, but with all the gun laws, they won't have enough guns! That's absurd.
I don't know what you mean by "outside sources." Certainly for core parts of their argument, using Blackstone or Story is hardly a "outside" source?
"Assumptions" about the time of the ratification are pretty helpful. Do you think if you went back and say, in 1800, tried to tell people that if they weren't or had never been in a militia you could take their guns? Do you think that would fly? I do find your position incredibly hard to understand historically. Like Scalia's opinion made clear, the document codifies a right already thought to be in existence at that time. Maybe you should read it again. Without any historical context your position sounds reasonable, but upon understanding the time period, it should become clear that it's wrong. never mind the fact that every other amendment (except the 9th and 10th) all refer to individual rights, and not the rights of institutions.
But this may be the most worthless argument to have. I don't know how much you've actually studied of the anti-gun control side, but I doubt it would change anything.
You do realize both of your definitions of what a "militia" constitutes are incorrect in terms of current jurisprudence.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Also using English common law and contemporary commentaries on English common law isn't 'outside sources' for American law, as American law has English common law as a basis as a result of having once been a colony and having broken away. One of the benefits of having broken away is that we got to write down a constitution instead of languishing in a system where an all-powerful parliament can decide, at a whim, to do anything they want to do, even if it abridges freedoms and rights.
Oh damn you are quoting a majority 5-4 opinion that I already mentioned? Good to know it's current jurisprudence. That lays everything to rest then. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I point out how absurd conservatives "textualists" / "originalists" are. When the decision is in your favor it's a plain matter of current jurisprudence and you cite Scalia, but when you lose by 1 vote it's still up for debate and clearly a post-hoc "liberal" ratinalization or some other bullshit.
You can have your guns if you want to. It's current jurisprudence after all. I'm sure your .45 will protect you from the government if they ever decide to come for you. But according to Introvert it's more important to protect the sacred right to a handgun than it is to prevent the NSA from invading every aspect of your online life.
edit: as for the outside sources comments I wasn't referring to the fact that they were English or anything of that sort. They are outside the text itself. You are either in the text or outside of it. Scalia's remarks about the "prefatory" clause implicitly admit that the clause has other interpretations both on it's plain face and in it's historical context. See the minority opinion or Cruikshank. The decent thing for you to do is admit that all readings of Constitutions and laws are done amidst competing interpretations.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
Yes, state militias. We should start making it mandatory again! "Every able bodied male of ages..." It would certainly make people less afraid of guns.
No one said anything about unlimited rights. Your statement was
"Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?"
This simple, broad post indicated to me that you thought the second amendment was an obsolete amendment, since we no longer use militias for most things.
I disagree anyway, I just gave you one excellent example that follows from perfectly logical reasoning. The point I made was that maybe one day we'll need a militia again, but with all the gun laws, they won't have enough guns! That's absurd.
I don't know what you mean by "outside sources." Certainly for core parts of their argument, using Blackstone or Story is hardly a "outside" source?
"Assumptions" about the time of the ratification are pretty helpful. Do you think if you went back and say, in 1800, tried to tell people that if they weren't or had never been in a militia you could take their guns? Do you think that would fly? I do find your position incredibly hard to understand historically. Like Scalia's opinion made clear, the document codifies a right already thought to be in existence at that time. Maybe you should read it again. Without any historical context your position sounds reasonable, but upon understanding the time period, it should become clear that it's wrong. never mind the fact that every other amendment (except the 9th and 10th) all refer to individual rights, and not the rights of institutions.
But this may be the most worthless argument to have. I don't know how much you've actually studied of the anti-gun control side, but I doubt it would change anything.
You do realize both of your definitions of what a "militia" constitutes are incorrect in terms of current jurisprudence.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Also using English common law and contemporary commentaries on English common law isn't 'outside sources' for American law, as American law has English common law as a basis as a result of having once been a colony and having broken away. One of the benefits of having broken away is that we got to write down a constitution instead of languishing in a system where an all-powerful parliament can decide, at a whim, to do anything they want to do, even if it abridges freedoms and rights.
Oh damn you are quoting a majority 5-4 opinion that I already mentioned? Good to know it's current jurisprudence. That lays everything to rest then. This is exactly what I'm talking about when I point out how absurd conservatives "textualists" / "originalists" are. When the decision is in your favor it's a plain matter of current jurisprudence and you cite Scalia, but when you lose by 1 vote it's still up for debate and clearly a post-hoc "liberal" ratinalization or some other bullshit.
You can have your guns if you want to. It's current jurisprudence after all. I'm sure your .45 will protect you from the government if they ever decide to come for you. But according to Introvert it's more important to protect the sacred right to a handgun than it is to prevent the NSA from invading every aspect of your online life.
edit: as for the outside sources comments I wasn't referring to the fact that they were English or anything of that sort. They are outside the text itself. You are either in the text or outside of it. Scalia's remarks about the "prefatory" clause implicitly admit that the clause has other interpretations both on it's plain face and in it's historical context. See the minority opinion or Cruikshank. The decent thing for you to do is admit that all readings of Constitutions and laws are done amidst competing interpretations.
The assumptions about my own personal politics that you make in this thread are pretty laughable. They are straw man at its finest really. I simply stated that both of you had an incorrect definition as it relates to standing precedent and constitutional law.
Just because a Supreme Court decision is 5-4, doesn't mean that it is any less "the law" than a decision that is 9-0. The Court does not reverse itself often.
On January 20 2014 03:28 xDaunt wrote: Just because a Supreme Court decision is 5-4, doesn't mean that it is any less "the law" than a decision that is 9-0. The Court does not reverse itself often.
When did he argue that it wasn't the law? Are you being willfully ignorant again?
Edit: The argument was that conservatives use the fact that something is lawful as an indicator that it is right - but only when it is a law they agree with. Whenever it's a law they don't agree with it's "open for interpretation".
And pointing out the obvious using "literally" like a 15 year old along with an oversimplification contributes to nothing more than an already clearly established sense of self-superiority. Your dislike for the manner in which most people express their political inclinations is duly noted, but that needn't get in the way of looking for where partisan political perspectives diverge. You also forgot about Stealth; his dedication to posting news items is a big part of why this thread ends up being useful.
At the point where the last few pages of this thread have been nothing but mindless partisan jabbing equivalent to what I stated above, it truly outweighs any utility gained by the more reliable positive posters. The vast majority of the people commenting in this thread can do little but call opposing views names and rely on tired and one-dimensional arguments supplied to them by their respective parties and talking heads that do not stand up to muster.
Wait, who is doing that? It's the left doing that. Reading those amendments with their original purpose and wording in mind isn't defacing them.
Separation of Church and state (in the way the far left means it) is a perversion of the first amendment.
Many on the right agree that the NSA is violating the 4th amendment. People all over the spectrum are on both sides of the issue. Unless you are referring to something else.
I don't believe the 8th is being violated (in Gitmo, if that's what you mean). This amendment is very much up for debate on what constitutes "excessive" and "cruel and unusual". Also, if this even applies to enemy, non-citizen combatants.
The 14th...I don't even want to go there right now. Again I don't know what you are referring to here, but I think the left likes to overstep bounds here repeatedly.
The 15th. Are you kidding me?
This is the problem with looking at the Constitution in any way other than the way than the way it was written.
You do realize that brushing off arguments with remarks like "this is a perversion", "this is up for debate" and "are you kidding me" does not actually accomplish much in terms of proving your point about one side being more faithful to the Constitution than the other?
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable. Either nothing is up for debate, or everything is. And if I were an US citizen, I would very much prefer the latter to be the case.
Oh, and as for the NSA thing - sure there were some people on the right that may have mentioned they think that what NSA is doing may be unconstitutional, and when they say it they usually say it in the most reserved and meek tone possible. There's been a notable lack of that trademark fervor and aggression they normally bring in defense of the Constitution, what's up with that?
I responded with more detail than the original post, but I am obviously aware that I didn't argue anything. I was opening it up. He may take his pick, although I'm willing to bet that almost every single one of those issues has already come up here.
Everything is up for debate, almost. Some things, like this presidential appointments case, shouldn't be, because of how hilariously obvious the text is.
It seems you think that only the parts of Constitution that the right doesn't like are up for debate and interpretation, while the ones you like are sacred and immutable.
What? I like all of those amendments. The only parts of the Constitution I don't like are the 16th and 17th amendments. I said the way those other amendments have been used is wrong, I didn't say I don't like the amendments. The distinction is important. Though I suppose that in typical mainstream media fashion, if I disagree with their usage then I must I hate them and civil rights.
For the NSA, it's because conservative time was split. We had that, the IRS scandal, Benghazi, Syria, the hulking, rampaging behemoth that is Obamacare, etc. That's a lot of crap to deal with in such a short time span. Personally, the NSA is something that can be dealt with later, the other issues (Obamacare) are/were more important because they were time sensitive. Obamacare in particular is time critical and the most destructive of them all. The NSA isn't going anywhere, so when the rest of it is figured out, then we deal with that. And, some on the right don't mind it. Just like many of the left.
So the IRS scandal (which turned out to be political grandstanding), Benghazi (more grandstanding), Syria, NSA, and Obamacare. Is that correct? Furthermore, are you insinuating that the threat to economic freedom you perceive from obamacare is greater than the threat to personal security that has been admitted by the NSA?
I wasn't commenting on those issues as they stand right now, but how they were important at the time. I still think they are important (I think those things were more than "political grandstanding"), but right now it is full force on the Obamacare train. This is THE issue that needs to be dealt with- yes, over the NSA. It will be hard, but the NSA policies can be stopped. Obamacare (and all the surrounding regulation and enforcement) does not only lasting economic damage, but further erodes our constitutional system. It will be much harder to undo, especially as it kicks into its final gear. It's going to lead to single payer, and it affects more Americans more directly- either in a direct negative fashion, or by making them more dependent on government handouts. So yes, Obamacare is the more pressing threat.
I find it interesting how the conservative population is so quick to call 1984 whenever gun control is mentioned, but seem totally trusting of incredibly broad government surveillance.
This is getting annoying. For some reason you seem unable or unwilling to actually think about what I said.
Where did I say I trusted them? I said it's a big issue that will take a long time to fix, but that, at this moment, Obamacare is worse for the country. I don't trust the NSA! I don't trust the government! That's why I oppose both gun control AND the broad spying the NSA is doing. Seriously, take 5 seconds to read.
I find it interestig that when the conservatives lose a vote 4-5 it's damnable activist judges, but when they win a vote 5-4 that overturns stare decisis and flouts the common language meaning of an amendment to expand a right for individuals to own weapons that didn't exist in 1791 they say it's straight out of the original meaning.
First of all, if it's bad precedent, then it should be overturned. Conservatives argue for the common, logical reading of the Constitution. It's the left that inserts whole new things into them. The Commerce Clause, while not an amendment, is one of the best examples of this. It is PRECISELY precedent that has destroyed the common meaning laid out by the framers. So that statement is crap, the left argues for a living and evolving constitution. That REQUIRES making up new things and sticking them where they never were. That's activism.
Secondly, the right never argues "well, since the Court said...." They may use the arguments the court used, but it's about the arguments, not the fact that the Supreme Court ruled one way or another.
I would respond the gun control thing like I said last night, but you should be able to google it by now. But let's try an exercise in using your own logic:
"Citizens are only to have guns so they can be a part of a militia and defend their land. This is no longer necessary, since we have a military. This is the meaning of the second amendment."
1. Now you have to accept a few facts. The framers were concerned about tyranny and often spoke of constant vigilance. They obviously advocated armed rebellion if the government got too oppressive. Do you think the same people who fought a violent revolution would have advocated that the government has the power to remove their arms? What if the government becomes oppressive again? Then they aren't going to give the guns back! So to say that it only applies to militias creates the absurd situation where the people can only fight back if the government allows them to. The Constitution both establishes a Commander-in-Chief (meaning there IS a military) while containing the 2nd amendment, meaning the two things (gun ownership and a military) and not mutually exclusive.
Let's go through some history, shall we?
2. Now do you actually think that as soon as the Constitution was ratified that the framers were no longer afraid of government tyranny? That's absurd. Now, if they weren't afraid, why did the states INSIST on a Bill of Rights at all? If you will go back to your history book, you'll recall that the states only ratified the Constitution on the understanding that a Bill of Rights would be added (there were 12/13 amendments discussed, the 10 we have were ratified). Those who disagreed thought that, since the Constitution only granted certain enumerated powers, that it was unnecessary. If you passed these amendments, then it would mean that the government had jurisdiction everywhere else! So, they added the 9th and 10th amendments. This is the meaning of them, of course the left pretends they don't exist, but whatever. This by itself contradicts what you said. It's the left that counter-acts original intent and common meaning.
So, for the ratifiers, the government had no power to pass gun control in the first place, but the states were afraid. So they added the second amendment, to make sure that government could NOT disarm the people. What if a militia were needed in the future? That brings back the point I made earlier, and it's the
TL;DR- The framers were concerned about tyranny, both then and in the future. So to take their guns away at any point leaves them vulnerable in the future, should they decide to organize again. So on the militia argument alone, the right to gun ownership for all citizens is perfectly logical.
Edit: cleaned some stuff up.
TLDR the framers were against tyranny and so am I so I read handgun ownership into the amendment without regard for the text.
I have no problems with gun ownership in connection to a well regulated militia. Start a state militia if you want.
Stevens gave quite a number of faithful textual reasons for interpreting the 2nd amendment not to grant the unlimited right to own a handgun. It was the majority opinion that was objectively activist, relying primarily on thin arguments from outside sources and normative assumptions.
Yes, state militias. We should start making it mandatory again! "Every able bodied male of ages..." It would certainly make people less afraid of guns.
No one said anything about unlimited rights. Your statement was
"Where's your well-regulated militia that justifies your gun ownership?"
This simple, broad post indicated to me that you thought the second amendment was an obsolete amendment, since we no longer use militias for most things.
I disagree anyway, I just gave you one excellent example that follows from perfectly logical reasoning. The point I made was that maybe one day we'll need a militia again, but with all the gun laws, they won't have enough guns! That's absurd.
I don't know what you mean by "outside sources." Certainly for core parts of their argument, using Blackstone or Story is hardly a "outside" source?
"Assumptions" about the time of the ratification are pretty helpful. Do you think if you went back and say, in 1800, tried to tell people that if they weren't or had never been in a militia you could take their guns? Do you think that would fly? I do find your position incredibly hard to understand historically. Like Scalia's opinion made clear, the document codifies a right already thought to be in existence at that time. Maybe you should read it again. Without any historical context your position sounds reasonable, but upon understanding the time period, it should become clear that it's wrong. never mind the fact that every other amendment (except the 9th and 10th) all refer to individual rights, and not the rights of institutions.
But this may be the most worthless argument to have. I don't know how much you've actually studied of the anti-gun control side, but I doubt it would change anything.
You do realize both of your definitions of what a "militia" constitutes are incorrect in terms of current jurisprudence.
(a) The Amendment’s prefatory clause announces a purpose, but does not limit or expand the scope of the second part, the operative clause. The operative clause’s text and history demonstrate that it connotes an individual right to keep and bear arms. Pp. 2–22.
(b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28.
Also using English common law and contemporary commentaries on English common law isn't 'outside sources' for American law, as American law has English common law as a basis as a result of having once been a colony and having broken away. One of the benefits of having broken away is that we got to write down a constitution instead of languishing in a system where an all-powerful parliament can decide, at a whim, to do anything they want to do, even if it abridges freedoms and rights.
EDIT: I do see where the misunderstanding could be coming from. When I referred to militias not being used, and other phrase of like sort, I can see one could read that I thought militias were only distinct organizations. But I think they are both organizations and citizens. States certainly did have their own militias, which is what I using in this context here (not that it was horribly relevant).
I don't recall every giving more than a general definition of a militia (if I even did that), because my point wasn't particularly dependent on it. The part you bolded is related to what I joked about when I said we should make it mandatory again. I know that a militia consisted of everyone capable of fighting, essentially. The militia was relevant to my point not because of that, but because at that time the vast majority of those in the militia owned their own guns, entirely apart from their militia service.
Are you responding to Igne with your second point? I don't ever recall saying that English common law was not to be used. To the contrary, I said that Blackstone was a fine source.
I'm just trying to make sure I get what you are saying here.
For better or for worse, politics will never rid itself of the populistic impulse to distill more complex topics into bite-size lines in the sand, lines that privy one side or the other kinds of thinking. In other words, even if we are to remove the troublesome contours of Internet based political discussions, one dimensional, tired arguments in politics are not going anywhere sans an endemic change in collective consciousness, as these are the bread and butter tools of contemporary electoral politicking. For example, Igne and Introvert's exchange falls along relatively well established lines, but that does not mean that there isn't value in seeing both sides forced to contend with what appears to most observers as irreconcilable differences in perspective. Politics is built upon the messy conversion that takes place when facts and collective/individual perspectives must somehow congeal into policy and popularly actionable concepts, and though I'm definitely a fan of encouraging "cleaner" posting, I think the subject matter requires some degrees of mess.
On January 20 2014 04:58 farvacola wrote: And pointing out the obvious using "literally" like a 15 year old along with an oversimplification contributes to nothing more than an already clearly established sense of self-superiority. Your dislike for the manner in which most people express their political inclinations is duly noted, but that needn't get in the way of looking for where partisan political perspectives diverge. You also forgot about Stealth; his dedication to posting news items is a big part of why this thread ends up being useful.
On January 20 2014 03:28 xDaunt wrote: Just because a Supreme Court decision is 5-4, doesn't mean that it is any less "the law" than a decision that is 9-0. The Court does not reverse itself often.
When did he argue that it wasn't the law? Are you being willfully ignorant again?
Edit: The argument was that conservatives use the fact that something is lawful as an indicator that it is right - but only when it is a law they agree with. Whenever it's a law they don't agree with it's "open for interpretation".
The ability of some posters to totally miss context and subtext in this thread never ceases to amaze me.
I think this thread is very good. Sure if you have a degree in political science and have for years been paying attention to politics while actively debating stuff and expanding your political vocabulary and observing high level academic discussions pertaining most important subjects visited by the thread then the discussions might take form at a lower level than what you would ideally participate in, but maybe you should then just accept that this is a gaming forum mostly hitting people in their late teens and twenties, with many Europeans with an interest in american politics but not necessarily with advanced understanding of american politics, and try to compare it to other discussion forums with a similar demographic.
And then you should realize that the function this thread has is not to thread new political ground creating resolutions to long-lasting political problems (because that would be impossible in this type of environment), but rather to function as a tool of expanding political knowledge for people who are interested, and to function as a training ground for forming coherent arguments. We're not discussing to convince the people we are discussing with, as most of us have made up our minds and then our brains somehow seem to function in a way that requires far more evidence to make us change our minds than for it to form the initial impression, rather we are discussing to convince those who enter this thread without already being world champion of politics.
Additionally you can always try to make it better by actually posting elaborate explanations for your point of view that might be understandable for the common plebs rather than asserting that the discussion is below your level while espousing tidbits of knowledge that indeed make it obvious that you know a lot but without you actually stating anything about what you believe. If we, the common thread-viewer is too ignorant, then please educate us. American politics is a field of interest of mine - but it's absolutely not something I consider myself an expert on. Pedagogics however kind of is, and I can tell you that none of the people complaining about the level of posting in this thread are doing a good job enlightening the ignorant.
EPT
