|
Although this thread does not function under the same strict guidelines as the USPMT, it is still a general practice on TL to provide a source with an explanation on why it is relevant and what purpose it adds to the discussion. Failure to do so will result in a mod action. |
A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could.
For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.”
www.nytimes.com
I personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction.
|
Reversing or at least narrowing Heller seems like a slightly more likely avenue of change, but even then, it's gonna be an uphill battle.
|
On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. Show nested quote +For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction.
If you clear the hurdle of repealing an amendment it's pretty easy, of course, chasing the idea of repealing the amendment is the easiest way to make sure nothing happens.
|
On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. Show nested quote +For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction.
how can it be "fraud" when it is an opinion?
|
On March 28 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. If you clear the hurdle of repealing an amendment it's pretty easy, of course, chasing the idea of repealing the amendment is the easiest way to make sure nothing happens.
Certainly. I don't support repealing it, because that sets a bad precedent. I'm not even really in favor of amending it. I think the conversation on gun laws might be shifting, though, and changing the second amendment is a good focal point for getting the teens currently protesting gun violence to pay attention to state level government.
I hate using how the gop operates as support, but like Indivisible used the tea party approach to organizing, the GOP got a lot done with voter turnout for 10+ years on the issue of banning same sex marriage via constitutional amendments.
On March 28 2018 05:50 travis wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. how can it be "fraud" when it is an opinion?
What? There was no question about how the second amendment worked for around 200 years, and in fact judicial precedent against the interpretation the NRA was pushing. And the NRA definitely gained wealth and political power from spreading that idea.
So to summarize, the NRA told people something that wasn't true and profited from it. That's pretty much the definition of fraud.
PS - stating something that isn't true but might retroactively become true at some point in the future does not make it any less of a false statement. At the time of Burger's comment, the NRA was telling people things about what the second amendment did that weren't true.
|
On March 28 2018 05:51 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. If you clear the hurdle of repealing an amendment it's pretty easy, of course, chasing the idea of repealing the amendment is the easiest way to make sure nothing happens. Certainly. I don't support repealing it, because that sets a bad precedent. I'm not even really in favor of amending it. I think the conversation on gun laws might be shifting, though, and changing the second amendment is a good focal point for getting the teens currently protesting gun violence to pay attention to state level government. I hate using how the gop operates as support, but like Indivisible used the tea party approach to organizing, the GOP got a lot done with voter turnout for 10+ years on the issue of banning same sex marriage via constitutional amendments. Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 05:50 travis wrote:On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. how can it be "fraud" when it is an opinion? What? There was no question about how the second amendment worked for around 200 years, and in fact judicial precedent against the interpretation the NRA was pushing. And the NRA definitely gained wealth and political power from spreading that idea. So to summarize, the NRA told people something that wasn't true and profited from it. That's pretty much the definition of fraud. PS - stating something that isn't true but might retroactively become true at some point in the future does not make it any less of a false statement. At the time of Burger's comment, the NRA was telling people things about what the second amendment did that weren't true.
Wait what? Stating something that isn't true but might retroactively become true at some point in the future does not make it any less of a false statement? Thats a really bad stance when you're talking about interpretations of the constitution. Driving drunk was practically an accepted thing before Mothers against drunk driving came around and changed the country. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion on something doesn't make them false on the issue.
|
On March 28 2018 06:40 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 05:51 Kyadytim wrote:On March 28 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. If you clear the hurdle of repealing an amendment it's pretty easy, of course, chasing the idea of repealing the amendment is the easiest way to make sure nothing happens. Certainly. I don't support repealing it, because that sets a bad precedent. I'm not even really in favor of amending it. I think the conversation on gun laws might be shifting, though, and changing the second amendment is a good focal point for getting the teens currently protesting gun violence to pay attention to state level government. I hate using how the gop operates as support, but like Indivisible used the tea party approach to organizing, the GOP got a lot done with voter turnout for 10+ years on the issue of banning same sex marriage via constitutional amendments. On March 28 2018 05:50 travis wrote:On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. how can it be "fraud" when it is an opinion? What? There was no question about how the second amendment worked for around 200 years, and in fact judicial precedent against the interpretation the NRA was pushing. And the NRA definitely gained wealth and political power from spreading that idea. So to summarize, the NRA told people something that wasn't true and profited from it. That's pretty much the definition of fraud. PS - stating something that isn't true but might retroactively become true at some point in the future does not make it any less of a false statement. At the time of Burger's comment, the NRA was telling people things about what the second amendment did that weren't true. Wait what? Stating something that isn't true but might retroactively become true at some point in the future does not make it any less of a false statement? Thats a really bad stance when you're talking about interpretations of the constitution. Driving drunk was practically an accepted thing before Mothers against drunk driving came around and changed the country. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion on something doesn't make them false on the issue.
With your specific example, Mothers against Drunk Driving did not assert that the law already banned drunk driving, they argued that it should, and convinced people that it should, and laws were passed to change the current state of things.
That's not what the NRA did, though. There are distinctions between someone saying that they think the Constitution means something that conflicts with current established precedent, arguing for changing how the Constitution is interpreted to a way that conflicts with current precedent, and asserting that the Constitution means something that outright conflicts with established precedent. The NRA did the third.
If they had pushed "We think the Second Amendment should be interpreted to protect individual gun ownership without restriction," or "We think the Second Amendment does protect individual gun ownership without restriction," those are stating opinions.
Instead, the NRA asserted a fact: "The Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership without restriction," which at the time it was not held to do. That's a falsehood, not an opinion.
|
On March 28 2018 07:29 Kyadytim wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 06:40 Sermokala wrote:On March 28 2018 05:51 Kyadytim wrote:On March 28 2018 05:34 GreenHorizons wrote:On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. If you clear the hurdle of repealing an amendment it's pretty easy, of course, chasing the idea of repealing the amendment is the easiest way to make sure nothing happens. Certainly. I don't support repealing it, because that sets a bad precedent. I'm not even really in favor of amending it. I think the conversation on gun laws might be shifting, though, and changing the second amendment is a good focal point for getting the teens currently protesting gun violence to pay attention to state level government. I hate using how the gop operates as support, but like Indivisible used the tea party approach to organizing, the GOP got a lot done with voter turnout for 10+ years on the issue of banning same sex marriage via constitutional amendments. On March 28 2018 05:50 travis wrote:On March 28 2018 05:19 Kyadytim wrote:A former Supreme Court Justice made a far better case for fixing the root of the problem than I ever could. For over 200 years after the adoption of the Second Amendment, it was uniformly understood as not placing any limit on either federal or state authority to enact gun control legislation. In 1939 the Supreme Court unanimously held that Congress could prohibit the possession of a sawed-off shotgun because that weapon had no reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a “well regulated militia.”
During the years when Warren Burger was our chief justice, from 1969 to 1986, no judge, federal or state, as far as I am aware, expressed any doubt as to the limited coverage of that amendment. When organizations like the National Rifle Association disagreed with that position and began their campaign claiming that federal regulation of firearms curtailed Second Amendment rights, Chief Justice Burger publicly characterized the N.R.A. as perpetrating “one of the greatest pieces of fraud, I repeat the word fraud, on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime.” www.nytimes.comI personally don't think that going as far as repeal is necessary, but certainly amending the second amendment so that the NRA's fraud on the American public (Chief Justice Warren Burger's words, not mine) is no longer even a vaguely possible reading of it would be a step in the right direction. how can it be "fraud" when it is an opinion? What? There was no question about how the second amendment worked for around 200 years, and in fact judicial precedent against the interpretation the NRA was pushing. And the NRA definitely gained wealth and political power from spreading that idea. So to summarize, the NRA told people something that wasn't true and profited from it. That's pretty much the definition of fraud. PS - stating something that isn't true but might retroactively become true at some point in the future does not make it any less of a false statement. At the time of Burger's comment, the NRA was telling people things about what the second amendment did that weren't true. Wait what? Stating something that isn't true but might retroactively become true at some point in the future does not make it any less of a false statement? Thats a really bad stance when you're talking about interpretations of the constitution. Driving drunk was practically an accepted thing before Mothers against drunk driving came around and changed the country. Just because someone disagrees with your opinion on something doesn't make them false on the issue. With your specific example, Mothers against Drunk Driving did not assert that the law already banned drunk driving, they argued that it should, and convinced people that it should, and laws were passed to change the current state of things. That's not what the NRA did, though. There are distinctions between someone saying that they think the Constitution means something that conflicts with current established precedent, arguing for changing how the Constitution is interpreted to a way that conflicts with current precedent, and asserting that the Constitution means something that outright conflicts with established precedent. The NRA did the third. If they had pushed "We think the Second Amendment should be interpreted to protect individual gun ownership without restriction," or "We think the Second Amendment does protect individual gun ownership without restriction," those are stating opinions. Instead, the NRA asserted a fact: "The Second Amendment protects individual gun ownership without restriction," which at the time it was not held to do. That's a falsehood, not an opinion.
Thats not how any of this works. The NRA disagreed with the interpretation of the second amendment and then lobbied to change the courts ruling on the amendment. Thats the foundation of anything that gets changed from separate but equal to alcohol. The NRA definitely said "we think the Second amendment should be interpreted to protect individual gun ownership without restriction" and then argued that in the courts to get heller. The guy was calling them frauds because he didn't believe that the comma ment anything other then to allow a pause for the reader to catch his breath while the NRA believes it has an interpretative impact on what the amendment means.
I'm basically saying that I don't understand how what you think the NRA did is any different then almost anything else thats brought before the supreme court.
|
Well, ignoring that you just abandoned your example about MADD...
There are two statements. "The constitution guarantees the right to unlimited ownership of any sort of weaponry," and "The constitution guarantees the right to ownership of muskets, only in the context of a militia." Obviously, both of these are exaggerated positions that nobody holds. Regardless, they can't both be true at once. There are two sources of resolution for this conflict. The authors of the constitution obviously know what they meant. Absent that, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is meant by sections of the constitution.
The difference between bringing arguments before the Supreme Court and what the NRA did is massive. Bringing an argument before the Supreme Court is asking the final authority to reconsider a facet of a position. The NRA engaged in a massive public persuasion campaign to convince people that the second amendment meant something that the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the constitution means, had indicated that it didn't mean. Most cases before the Supreme Court are not high profile issues. In the late 1970s, the NRA manufactured a divide in American politics more or less out of thin air. Before then, the NRA was a pro-gun-control organization.
To make this really fucking clear, if I assert right now that the second amendment only guarantees ownership of muskets in a militia, and the NRA sends out an e-mail saying that the second amendment protects the right to only an AR-15, I am saying something I know to be not correct at the time of saying it, also known as lying. If some time this year the Supreme Court reverses itself and decides on a super strict reading of the second amendment that only guarantees the right to a musket in a militia, that doesn't make what my assertion now any less of a lie. It was still something I knew was wrong when I said it. Relatedly, the NRA's e-mail doesn't become a falsehood, because at the time it was sent out, it was true.
Obviously, there is a theoretical absolute truth based on what the writers of the constitution intended, but we can't know that, so we're left with the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that means that the truth value of statements about law can change over time. That doesn't mean that every statement is true, that every statement is false, or that every statement has an unknowable truth value.
|
You do realize that
1.) The NRA is not a single individual
and
2.) Opinions can change. Changing a stance isn't "lying", or "committing fraud".
The NRA engaged in a massive public persuasion campaign to convince people that the second amendment meant something that the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the constitution means, had indicated that it didn't mean.
Regardless of the fact that I am not even sure what you are talking about, even if what you are saying is an accurate portrayal - I am not sure what your point is. Are we not allowed to persuade the public and attempt to affect change? It's "lying" and "fraud" to disagree with supreme court rulings?
|
On March 28 2018 08:38 Kyadytim wrote:
Well, ignoring that you just abandoned your example about MADD...
There are two statements. "The constitution guarantees the right to unlimited ownership of any sort of weaponry," and "The constitution guarantees the right to ownership of muskets, only in the context of a militia." Obviously, both of these are exaggerated positions that nobody holds. Regardless, they can't both be true at once. There are two sources of resolution for this conflict. The authors of the constitution obviously know what they meant. Absent that, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is meant by sections of the constitution.
The difference between bringing arguments before the Supreme Court and what the NRA did is massive. Bringing an argument before the Supreme Court is asking the final authority to reconsider a facet of a position. The NRA engaged in a massive public persuasion campaign to convince people that the second amendment meant something that the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the constitution means, had indicated that it didn't mean. Most cases before the Supreme Court are not high profile issues. In the late 1970s, the NRA manufactured a divide in American politics more or less out of thin air. Before then, the NRA was a pro-gun-control organization.
To make this really fucking clear, if I assert right now that the second amendment only guarantees ownership of muskets in a militia, and the NRA sends out an e-mail saying that the second amendment protects the right to only an AR-15, I am saying something I know to be not correct at the time of saying it, also known as lying. If some time this year the Supreme Court reverses itself and decides on a super strict reading of the second amendment that only guarantees the right to a musket in a militia, that doesn't make what my assertion now any less of a lie. It was still something I knew was wrong when I said it. Relatedly, the NRA's e-mail doesn't become a falsehood, because at the time it was sent out, it was true.
Obviously, there is a theoretical absolute truth based on what the writers of the constitution intended, but we can't know that, so we're left with the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that means that the truth value of statements about law can change over time. That doesn't mean that every statement is true, that every statement is false, or that every statement has an unknowable truth value.
My example about MADD continues. There isn't a zero sum "the NRA wants no restrictions on gun ownership" vs "there are complete restrictions about gun ownership" argument in the USA. MADD changed the bar greatly on whats okay for drunk driving and made it a lot harsher on drunk drivers lowering the limit greatly. The NRA with Heller did this as well but with loosening restrictions on gun ownership. Neither was preaching facts but advocating for a different opinion on the issue. I'm using different examples to try and express clearer what I'm saying.
You apparently agree with me now based on your last paragraph so there really isn't more to say.
|
On March 28 2018 08:54 Sermokala wrote:Show nested quote +On March 28 2018 08:38 Kyadytim wrote:
Well, ignoring that you just abandoned your example about MADD...
There are two statements. "The constitution guarantees the right to unlimited ownership of any sort of weaponry," and "The constitution guarantees the right to ownership of muskets, only in the context of a militia." Obviously, both of these are exaggerated positions that nobody holds. Regardless, they can't both be true at once. There are two sources of resolution for this conflict. The authors of the constitution obviously know what they meant. Absent that, the Supreme Court is the final authority on what is meant by sections of the constitution.
The difference between bringing arguments before the Supreme Court and what the NRA did is massive. Bringing an argument before the Supreme Court is asking the final authority to reconsider a facet of a position. The NRA engaged in a massive public persuasion campaign to convince people that the second amendment meant something that the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the constitution means, had indicated that it didn't mean. Most cases before the Supreme Court are not high profile issues. In the late 1970s, the NRA manufactured a divide in American politics more or less out of thin air. Before then, the NRA was a pro-gun-control organization.
To make this really fucking clear, if I assert right now that the second amendment only guarantees ownership of muskets in a militia, and the NRA sends out an e-mail saying that the second amendment protects the right to only an AR-15, I am saying something I know to be not correct at the time of saying it, also known as lying. If some time this year the Supreme Court reverses itself and decides on a super strict reading of the second amendment that only guarantees the right to a musket in a militia, that doesn't make what my assertion now any less of a lie. It was still something I knew was wrong when I said it. Relatedly, the NRA's e-mail doesn't become a falsehood, because at the time it was sent out, it was true.
Obviously, there is a theoretical absolute truth based on what the writers of the constitution intended, but we can't know that, so we're left with the Supreme Court. Unfortunately, that means that the truth value of statements about law can change over time. That doesn't mean that every statement is true, that every statement is false, or that every statement has an unknowable truth value. My example about MADD continues. There isn't a zero sum "the NRA wants no restrictions on gun ownership" vs "there are complete restrictions about gun ownership" argument in the USA. MADD changed the bar greatly on whats okay for drunk driving and made it a lot harsher on drunk drivers lowering the limit greatly. The NRA with Heller did this as well but with loosening restrictions on gun ownership. Neither was preaching facts but advocating for a different opinion on the issue. I'm using different examples to try and express clearer what I'm saying. You apparently agree with me now based on your last paragraph so there really isn't more to say.
Right, but MADD wasn't arguing that the law already banned drunk driving. The NRA was basically telling its members that the government was actively violating and/or trying to violate the second amendment. Also, the NRA wasn't involved in Heller. By the wikipedia article, they tried to derail Heller because they were afraid the court would find against them.
On March 28 2018 08:50 travis wrote:You do realize that 1.) The NRA is not a single individual and 2.) Opinions can change. Changing a stance isn't "lying", or "committing fraud". Show nested quote +
The NRA engaged in a massive public persuasion campaign to convince people that the second amendment meant something that the Supreme Court, the final authority on what the constitution means, had indicated that it didn't mean.
Regardless of the fact that I am not even sure what you are talking about, even if what you are saying is an accurate portrayal - I am not sure what your point is. Are we not allowed to persuade the public and attempt to affect change? It's "lying" and "fraud" to disagree with supreme court rulings?
There's a difference between trying to persuade people that things should be different (like what MADD did, see above), versus telling people that things are different, and that the government doesn't have the authority to make gun laws when the courts had upheld every gun law so far.
I'm not sure how you guys are missing the difference between persuading people with "Things should be different," and motivating people with "Things are different from what the final authority on things says about them." This is not rocket science. It's the difference between "America shouldn't have tariffs on steel and aluminum," and "America can't have tariffs on steel and aluminum in this fashion because the constitution doesn't allow it." The NRA was the latter, but talking about guns not tariffs.
|
what you are saying is pedantic and stupid. so what then, everyone has to preface any statement that disagrees with a supreme court ruling with a disclaimer about what the current interpretation of the supreme court is? god forbid I have an opinion that a handful of old people are wrong about something. I can't dare to say it, lest I be commiting fraud.
|
On March 29 2018 08:49 travis wrote:
what you are saying is pedantic and stupid. so what then, everyone has to preface any statement that disagrees with a supreme court ruling with a disclaimer about what the current interpretation of the supreme court is? god forbid I have an opinion that a handful of old people are wrong about something. I can't dare to say it, lest I be commiting fraud.
I am not sure if you claim you are not understanding the difference between what you are saying and what Kyadytim is saying or if you willfully ingore it and then try to downplay it as pedantic when there is a worf of difference there. I can't really tell if his claim is true as i did not experience the discussion of the NRA back when the supreme shifted interpretation of the 2nd amendment but if their discussion was how he or his source claim it was, the difference is huge. One is a fake news campaign lying to Americans to get them mad at the government and behind a lobbying group and the other is trying to achieve change in society.
|
On March 29 2018 08:49 travis wrote:
what you are saying is pedantic and stupid. so what then, everyone has to preface any statement that disagrees with a supreme court ruling with a disclaimer about what the current interpretation of the supreme court is? god forbid I have an opinion that a handful of old people are wrong about something. I can't dare to say it, lest I be commiting fraud.
As the phrase goes, you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
|
On March 30 2018 05:15 Mohdoo wrote:Show nested quote +On March 29 2018 08:49 travis wrote:
what you are saying is pedantic and stupid. so what then, everyone has to preface any statement that disagrees with a supreme court ruling with a disclaimer about what the current interpretation of the supreme court is? god forbid I have an opinion that a handful of old people are wrong about something. I can't dare to say it, lest I be commiting fraud. As the phrase goes, you are entitled to your own opinion. You are not entitled to your own facts.
Interpretations of amendments are based on opinion not fact.
|
|
|
Tragedy averted, thanks to new gun laws 
New Vermont gun laws block suspected school shooting plotter from getting gun
New gun laws signed earlier this month by Vermont's governor were reportedly used to block the suspect in a school shooting plot from gaining access to a gun.
A superior court judge signed an extreme risk protection order on Thursday regarding Jack Sawyer, 18, according to The Associated Press.
Sawyer allegedly created a plan for a shooting at Fair Haven Union High School and has a diary he titled "Journal of an Active Shooter."
The court order comes after Vermont Gov. Phil Scott (R) last week signed into law new restrictions on gun ownership, which included new background check requirements, age restrictions on gun purchases and a ban on bump stocks.
Another bill created an extreme risk protection order, allowing courts or law enforcement to take guns away from those deemed to be a threat to themselves or others.
Scott reportedly altered his view on gun restrictions after reviewing the affidavit in the Sawyer case.
According to the AP, the state Supreme Court ruled Wednesday that there wasn't enough evidence for Sawyer, who did not act on his plans, to be held without bail.
Sawyer has pleaded not guilty to attempted aggravated murder, according to the AP.
Fair Haven cafe owner Mark Gutel told the AP that people are "frustrated" and "scared" following Sawyer's bail release.
"Because that's a serious crime, it was a serious threat — a credible threat," he said.
The school superintendent said that additional security measures, including a swipe-card access system and an additional police presence, would be put in place.
A court hearing is planned for later this month, according to the AP. http://thehill.com/homenews/state-watch/383314-new-vermont-gun-laws-used-to-block-suspected-school-shooting-plotter
|
Unfortunate news of a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas (just southeast of Houston). Multiple fatalities. So far it sounds like someone pulled a fire alarm again to draw people out of classes.
|
On May 19 2018 00:35 Thomasmarkle wrote:
Unfortunate news of a school shooting in Santa Fe, Texas (just southeast of Houston). Multiple fatalities. So far it sounds like someone pulled a fire alarm again to draw people out of classes.
i guess its time to get rid of all fire alarms?
|
|
|
|
|
|
EPT
