RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Casual Banter] >> Off the Grid



Message

TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 7:46:49 PM)

quote:

Well, Americans in general are law-abiding citizens. But when you change the laws in ways they won't abide, then they stop being law-abiding. Forget guns. Outlaw beer and see what happens. That's how it works.


I think the US went there and did that.  It didn't pan out ... except we did get Tony Soprano!



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 7:53:37 PM)

quote:

I really find it amazing how one minute pro gun advocates decry any attempt to infringe on the rights of "law abiding"citizens to their guns.Then declare they aren't giving them up no matter what changes might be made to the law.


That's because we don't honor change to constitutional law.  Why do you think they made it law?  Why was it the basis of tfreedom for citizens in the US?  If they get to change it - GUESS WHAT?  We could become Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or England or whatever.  See, it's untouchable for a good reason.  So if whomever decides to "over ride it", it's not like anyone in the US will feel automatically compelled to OBEY.  We're not morlocks.  Ain't that grand?  [:)]



celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 7:58:10 PM)

quote:

Think about your children. Do you wish for them to pick up a gun and shoot someone with it?


If the "someone" is a burglar, murderer, rapist, or other malcontent, damn skippy I do.

If the "someone" is a politician, lawyer, or tax collector--depends on the mood I'm in. [;)]



slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 7:58:25 PM)

You know it is really cute that when you discuss regulations and laws designed to limit unfettered ownership of guns ,there knee jerk reaction to make it about outlawing completely the right to own guns.That must be taught in some NRA handbook in another context it is called bait and switch..



Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:04:49 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I really find it amazing how one minute pro gun advocates decry any attempt to infringe on the rights of "law abiding"citizens to their guns.Then declare they aren't giving them up no matter what changes might be made to the law.Will they have to give up their law abiding status  or do they have exemptions

Well, it's sort of the same way Christians, say, would decry any attempt to infringe on the rights of law abiding citizens to attend the church of their choice, and would defend their right to do so no matter what changes "might be made to the law".
 
But that's alright. As a slave, you don't understand. Let it go.
 
K.
 



Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:05:59 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: TracyTaken

quote:

I really find it amazing how one minute pro gun advocates decry any attempt to infringe on the rights of "law abiding"citizens to their guns.Then declare they aren't giving them up no matter what changes might be made to the law.


That's because we don't honor change to constitutional law.  Why do you think they made it law?  Why was it the basis of tfreedom for citizens in the US?  If they get to change it - GUESS WHAT?  We could become Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or England or whatever.  See, it's untouchable for a good reason.  So if whomever decides to "over ride it", it's not like anyone in the US will feel automatically compelled to OBEY.  We're not morlocks.  Ain't that grand?



This strikes me as a nonsensical view, given that the same people who wrote this supposedly untouchable document also wrote about the ways in which it could be touched!  If you do not honor change to constitutional law, do you oppose the following:

- The limits of citizens suing states in federal courts under federal law
- The judicial status of foreign nationals
- The electoral college casting separate ballots for president and vice president
- Abolishing slavery
- Defining citizenship
- Prohibiting states from abridging the right to due process, equal protection, and other legal immunities
- Repealing the three fifths compromise
- Federal income taxes
- Forbidding race, color, or previous slave status as a qualification for voting
- Direct election of senators
- Prohibiting the manufacture, import, export, or sale of alcoholic beverages
- Allowing the manufacture, import, export, and sale of alcoholic beverages
- Prohibiting the federal government or states from forbidding any citizen to vote due to their sex (allowing women to vote)
- The definition of and alterations to the details of presidential succession
- Limiting presidents to two terms
- Allowing the District of Columbia to have presidential electors
- Prohibiting the federal and state governments from requiring the payment of a tax as a qualification to vote for federal officials
- More changes, including what to do in the case of incapacitation of the president, to the presidential succession
- Prohibiting the federal government and states from disallowing voters to vote because of age, so long as they are 18 or older
- Limiting congressional pay raises

Why do I list these things?

Coincidentally, they are all alterations to constitutional law that have occurred after the initial Bill of Rights.  Do you seriously not support any of these?



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:12:28 PM)

quote:

That must be taught in some NRA handbook in another context it is called bait and switch.


One way to find out for sure.  Take a class, and then you can tell us what the NRA is about using first-hand information!



celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:15:23 PM)

quote:

My point, however, is that the exact, precise, unequivocal meaning of the second ammendment as it pertains to all possible scenarios in all possible realities cannot be defined simply from the text.


I disagree.  "Arms", per Merriam Webster:
quote:


1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm


We are allowed to own weapons.  There is no indication the right is restricted to a particular military or weapons technology.

Thus, all the weapons you ennumerated should be available for private ownership, following a literal (and my preferred) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment




TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:17:34 PM)

quote:

Why do I list these things?

Coincidentally, they are all alterations to constitutional law that have occurred after the initial Bill of Rights. Do you seriously not support any of these?


How do "any of these" work against the Bill of Rights?  Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

BTW, if  you really wanna know about how slavery fit into the formation after the articles of the confederation, you might want to take a class.  Limitation was intentional.

As far as the rest ... you are going to have to break it down for me.  Which part of the constitution or which one of the Bill of Rights it effects.  I'm just not seeing it, but I'm very tired and not very bright right now.



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:20:04 PM)

quote:

Thus, all the weapons you ennumerated should be available for private ownership, following a literal (and my preferred) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment


The thought of "getting creative" with such things is terribly frightening to me.



Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:24:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

My point, however, is that the exact, precise, unequivocal meaning of the second ammendment as it pertains to all possible scenarios in all possible realities cannot be defined simply from the text.


I disagree.  "Arms", per Merriam Webster:
quote:


1 a: a means (as a weapon) of offense or defense; especially : firearm


We are allowed to own weapons.  There is no indication the right is restricted to a particular military or weapons technology.

Thus, all the weapons you ennumerated should be available for private ownership, following a literal (and my preferred) interpretation of the 2nd Amendment




By the very definition you quoted, this is meant to especially apply to firearms, yet you are attempting to likewise define it as covering anthrax and nuclear weapons (as per my previous post), neither of which are firearms.

Also, that's not the only definition for arms listed, is it?

My point is that a pure, 100% literal interpretation of all language is not, in any way, shape, or form, possible.  There is too much subjectivity for everyone to share the exact same specific meaning for all things at all times.  Any rudimentary investigation into how language works will reveal this.

I can provide some links to source material or books if you'd like.  If everything was cut and dry obvious, we would not need a legal system (or, at most, a very small one).



amelliagrace -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:26:20 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: MissSCD

It is the same old story Grace.   All we are asking for is a little control on automatic weapons, and knowledge of how to shoot a gun.  I was in the military so I know how to shoot, but at the same time, I was educated in the proper way to use it, and I know it will kill you.
No child should use a gun.
 
Regards, MissSCD


In time of civil war no minor should fire a gun?  No minor should go hunting with a parent or gradparent?  What age is your cut off for child?  If your child were abducted by a person with a gun, and later the child managed to get lose and grab a gun, would you not want that child to fire it if need be to escape and stay alive?
 
Agreed, any citizen who wishes to purchase and own a gun should be legally required to pass a very good course on gun use and local law.
 
While I personally see no reason why the average citizen needs two or three assault rifles, I also see this as one of those slippery slopes.  I'd prefer to see draconian consequences for those who use any weapon in the commission of a crime or act of non-selfdefensive violence than restrictions on ownership.
 
Grace



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:30:35 PM)

quote:


In time of civil war no minor should fire a gun? No minor should go hunting with a parent or gradparent?


Of course not!  They're supposed to pop into their 18th birthday just *KNOWING* certain things.  Like how to vote.  [&:]



Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:34:33 PM)

Tracy:

quote:

That's because we don't honor change to constitutional law.  Why do you think they made it law?  Why was it the basis of tfreedom for citizens in the US?  If they get to change it - GUESS WHAT?  We could become Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or England or whatever.  See, it's untouchable for a good reason.  So if whomever decides to "over ride it", it's not like anyone in the US will feel automatically compelled to OBEY.  We're not morlocks.  Ain't that grand?


quote:


How do "any of these" work against the Bill of Rights?  Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

BTW, if  you really wanna know about how slavery fit into the formation after the articles of the confederation, you might want to take a class.  Limitation was intentional.

As far as the rest ... you are going to have to break it down for me.  Which part of the constitution or which one of the Bill of Rights it effects.  I'm just not seeing it, but I'm very tired and not very bright right now.


These are incongruous statements.  In one case, you are stating that you do not honor changes to constitutional law; this would mean that any sort of change, including further ammendments, would not be honored.  Is that not what you meant?  In the second, you break it down to changing specifically the Bill of Rights, but likewise, there are specific passages that were altered in the constitution and Bill of Rights with the further ammendments.  The ammendments regarding succession order and the role of the vice presidency, as well as those specifying direct election of senators, directly change the Constitution itself.  The ammendments regarding states abridging due process, or restricting their abilities regarding voting, directly and materially alter several of the Bill of Rights statements.  Do you oppose them?

Likewise, as has been demonstrated with the whole prohibition fiasco, it is clearly possible to pass ammendments invalidating other ammendments.  If an ammendment was passed invalidating the second ammendment, would you support that?  Do you support the ammendment repealing prohibition?

My point is that you cannot cherry pick sections of constitutional law to support or not while making a blanket claim about the entire process.  If your real bone to pick is that you won't support changes specifically a given ammendment (or ammendments), that's fine, but come out and say it, don't hide behind a different rubric.  To claim blanket lack of support for alteration of any part of the Bill of Rights means you oppose the initial Constitution as written.  It likewise means you should, in theory, be opposing several of the later ammendments and refusing to honor them.



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:36:16 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Real_Trouble

Tracy:

quote:

That's because we don't honor change to constitutional law.  Why do you think they made it law?  Why was it the basis of tfreedom for citizens in the US?  If they get to change it - GUESS WHAT?  We could become Pakistan or Saudi Arabia or England or whatever.  See, it's untouchable for a good reason.  So if whomever decides to "over ride it", it's not like anyone in the US will feel automatically compelled to OBEY.  We're not morlocks.  Ain't that grand?


quote:


How do "any of these" work against the Bill of Rights?  Sorry, I'm not seeing it.

BTW, if  you really wanna know about how slavery fit into the formation after the articles of the confederation, you might want to take a class.  Limitation was intentional.

As far as the rest ... you are going to have to break it down for me.  Which part of the constitution or which one of the Bill of Rights it effects.  I'm just not seeing it, but I'm very tired and not very bright right now.


These are incongruous statements.  In one case, you are stating that you do not honor changes to constitutional law; this would mean that any sort of change, including further ammendments, would not be honored.  Is that not what you meant?  In the second, you break it down to changing specifically the Bill of Rights, but likewise, there are specific passages that were altered in the constitution and Bill of Rights with the further ammendments.  The ammendments regarding succession order and the role of the vice presidency, as well as those specifying direct election of senators, directly change the Constitution itself.  The ammendments regarding states abridging due process, or restricting their abilities regarding voting, directly and materially alter several of the Bill of Rights statements.  Do you oppose them?

Likewise, as has been demonstrated with the whole prohibition fiasco, it is clearly possible to pass ammendments invalidating other ammendments.  If an ammendment was passed invalidating the second ammendment, would you support that?  Do you support the ammendment repealing prohibition?

My point is that you cannot cherry pick sections of constitutional law to support or not while making a blanket claim about the entire process.  If your real bone to pick is that you won't support changes specifically a given ammendment (or ammendments), that's fine, but come out and say it, don't hide behind a different rubric.  To claim blanket lack of support for alteration of any part of the Bill of Rights means you oppose the initial Constitution as written.  It likewise means you should, in theory, be opposing several of the later ammendments and refusing to honor them.


Thanks for the lecture.  Could you answer my question now?



celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:36:40 PM)

quote:

By the very definition you quoted, this is meant to especially apply to firearms, yet you are attempting to likewise define it as covering anthrax and nuclear weapons (as per my previous post), neither of which are firearms.

Also, that's not the only definition for arms listed, is it?


"especially" means most frequently but not exclusively.  Also, I'm not "attempting" anything.  I am applying the full definition I quoted, which necessarily embraces any and all weapons technology both extant and yet to be developed.

Further, it is the only definition of arms that is relevant to this discussion.  The reference to militias frames the context of the right as martial in nature without imposing a predicate condition upon the right.  Thus the definition I cited is the only one pertinent.  Yes there are others, but we're not talking about your biceps now, are we?  (Or are you arguing limits to a man's inalienable right to his limbs?)




slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:40:50 PM)

I give up people that believe in absolutes are usually absolutely dangerous and in this case their all armed .I wouldn't want them any more upset with me than they already are.On top of all that i identify as a slave which apparently means I'm dense



Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:41:29 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

quote:

By the very definition you quoted, this is meant to especially apply to firearms, yet you are attempting to likewise define it as covering anthrax and nuclear weapons (as per my previous post), neither of which are firearms.

Also, that's not the only definition for arms listed, is it?


"especially" means most frequently but not exclusively.  Also, I'm not "attempting" anything.  I am applying the full definition I quoted, which necessarily embraces any and all weapons technology both extant and yet to be developed.

Further, it is the only definition of arms that is relevant to this discussion.  The reference to militias frames the context of the right as martial in nature without imposing a predicate condition upon the right.  Thus the definition I cited is the only one pertinent.  Yes there are others, but we're not talking about your biceps now, are we?  (Or are you arguing limits to a man's inalienable right to his limbs?)




I reference the multiplicity of definitions around arms because it is the most accessible one to the debate; my point is that virtually all nouns / verbs have a multiplicity of meanings throughout various contexts, social eras, and the like.  I would suggest that, given the definition you stated, it is most likely that the comment arms means, specifically, firearms.

However, I'm not absolutely certain it wasn't either intended as more restrictive (as in, specific kinds of firearms) or less restrictive (all possible weapons).  There's no way to be certain from that statement, especially given that the very dictionary you quoted did not even exist when that statement was written.

Now, if we had a dictionary from the initial libraries of the founding fathers, with a definition circled and a note somewhere about that being exactly and precisely what they meant by the language, I'm all for using that.  But unless someone can produce that, I think there is legitimate doubt that needs to be hashed out, and should be hashed out.

It cannot, however, be done so simply by staring at the word "arms" and wishing some definition into existence.  Or are you claiming that you literally, precisely, and with 100% certainty know exactly what the founding fathers intended with that specific statement, with no chance of error?



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:44:51 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

I give up people that believe in absolutes are usually absolutely dangerous and in this case their all armed .I wouldn't want them any more upset with me than they already are.On top of all that i identify as a slave which apparently means I'm dense


What makes you think you are dense?



Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:47:06 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: amelliagrace

I'd prefer to see draconian consequences for those who use any weapon in the commission of a crime or act of non-selfdefensive violence than restrictions on ownership.
 
Conveniently, as it happens, allowing citizens to be armed vastly improves the chances of criminal violence meeting with "consequences" in an immediate and effective way.
 
K.
 



Page: <<   < prev  11 12 [13] 14 15   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875