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 8:47:20 PM)

quote:


Now, if we had a dictionary from the initial libraries of the founding fathers,


And we do.  It's not like they were carving stuff in stone, eh?



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:49:57 PM)

quote:

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.


Quite unlike the best of law enforcement.  Funny how law enforcement knows that and gun control folks don't.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:50:24 PM)

quote:

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.


By this logic, the Constitution itself has no meaning whatsoever outside of whatever linguistic fiats this or that generation sees fit to apply.  By this logic, we may, or may not, have the right to free speech, bear arms, peacably assemble, worship, et cetera.  By this logic the Constitution is merely a mirror of the current consensus on civil liberties and social values.

This logic, however, is refuted not only by the entirety of Supreme Court history, but also the Federalist Papers and innumerable other writings on the Constitution and its meaning.  The Constitution is not relative, but definitive.  Being definitive, it must in some ways become an absolute.  It is the absolute arbiter of law and justice within the United States.

Words may have multiple meanings, but in any given context a word has only one meaning.  In the context of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the word "arms" means "weapons"--in particular firearms but also all weapons.



Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:51:40 PM)

Tracy, I did answer your question.  You asked, in order:

Why do you think they made it [the constitution and bill of rights] law?  
Why was it the basis of tfreedom for citizens in the US?  
If they get to change it - GUESS WHAT?  
Ain't that grand?
How do "any of these" work against the Bill of Rights?  

I answered, in order (paraphrasing):

1 - They put a process in place to change it in the documents you reference.

2 - Because that's the set of documents they used to found our government; if you mean "why" they chose that particular set of rules as the basis of freedom, that's going to be a philosophical discussion beyond the scope of this thread, but it reflected what I would consider to be a somewhat radical viewpoint based around Natural Law and the implementation thereof at the time, to give a brief answer.

3 - I'm guessing they intended to change it, given the part where they define in the constitution how to add ammendments.  Read Article V of the constitution to see this: http://en.wikisource.org/wiki/Constitution_of_the_United_States_of_America

4 - I am a huge supporter of America, and yes, I actually think it's an incredibly well-thought out pair of documents given the social context and position of most governments at the time.

5 - By re-defining or altering the Bill of Rights itself, with regard to states being unable to abridge due process, and with regard to taking away some of the rights that had previously been held by the states under a blanket clause in the tenth ammendment.

I think I have been very clear about the fact that if you are a constitutional orginalist and against any / all modification of constitutional law, that the following must be true:

1 - You oppose Article V as it was originally written, as this provides a process (which has been used) to change constitutional law.

2 - You oppose all further ammendments.

Or, specifically, if you are against the Bill of Rights being altered, you should be opposed to the following:

1 - All of the later ammendments which alter the material substance of earlier ammendments.

2 - The ability to pass ammendments (which has been used) invalidating earlier ammendments.

Your arguments are logically inconsistent and do not conform with the documents you reference.  I'm done addressing your posts, as the evidence leads me to believe you are uninterested in having an informed debate, but there is my last rebuttal for you.

Enjoy.



BowlineDom -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:52:39 PM)

Hello All,

Though I would jump in to say that it is of course possible to amend the constitution.....The bill of rights are especially sacred because they were created at the time of ratifiaction of the constitution.  I think the issue that many have with what's currently happening is that the process for amending the 2nd amendment or repealing it is not on the table.  The reality is that such the revocation of the 2nd amendment is not a popular position and certainly wouldn't have the support needed for an amendment to the constitution.  What people object to is that special interest groups that want to deny this constitutional right are trying to declare it misunderstood and have the judiciary re-interpret it to their liking.  Why not be up front about it and put it to a vote....this is a democracy....Why...?  Because they know that they would lose.   Why also do you think that the Democratic candidates will not touch this issue with a ten foot pole despite their private interest in further gun control......the reason is because it lost Al Gore his home state (and the presidency). 



TracyTaken -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:58:25 PM)

quote:


Your arguments are logically inconsistent and do not conform with the documents you reference. I'm done addressing your posts, as the evidence leads me to believe you are uninterested in having an informed debate, but there is my last rebuttal for you.


Thanks!  I'm not actually interested in anything except preserving what we have that gives us the right to protect ourselves.  Truth is, I'm not terribly concerned about that even because I can't see how it could be taken away, with or without an ugly scene.  I'm not interested in the kind of debate you would like - not tonight anyway - like I said, I'm bushed (BAD word).

But I'm not blowing off what you say either.



Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 8:59:32 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

By this logic, the Constitution itself has no meaning whatsoever outside of whatever linguistic fiats this or that generation sees fit to apply.  By this logic, we may, or may not, have the right to free speech, bear arms, peacably assemble, worship, et cetera.  By this logic the Constitution is merely a mirror of the current consensus on civil liberties and social values.


I believe you are missing my point; I am not saying words have no meaning or infinite plasticity in all contexts!  I am saying interpretation is complicated, and that absolute certainty is sometimes not available through certain statements, though some degree of relative certainty is.

For instance, if I say:

"The cat was black."

Then it is fairly clear I am not referring to a dog, or a parachute, or a fork being black.  But what precisely I meant by cat is up for debate; cat is a word that lacks specificity.  Did I mean a house cat?  Panther?  Bobcat?  Was I using slang and referring to one of my friends?  And likewise, in that case, did I mean black as the racial group, or did I mean the literal color?

Obviously, there are not infinite meanings here, but likewise, there is not one absolute, clearly defined meaning with no uncertainty whatsoever unless you further question me about this.  If that is all I wrote, and then died and vanished, how would you interpret that?

This is the question I ask.

quote:

This logic, however, is refuted not only by the entirety of Supreme Court history, but also the Federalist Papers and innumerable other writings on the Constitution and its meaning.  The Constitution is not relative, but definitive.  Being definitive, it must in some ways become an absolute.  It is the absolute arbiter of law and justice within the United States.


Actually, it's not just not refuted, it is supported!  If the original document was perfectly clear, we wouldn't need to have Supreme Court sessions to rule on the meaning of various ammendments!  There would be an appeal, they would deny it because it was obvious, and they'd spend their time on other cases.  We would not need to have additional writings explaining and clarifying it!  These things you reference are precisely what show we need additional context around the document in order to understand exactly what it references.

quote:

Words may have multiple meanings, but in any given context a word has only one meaning.  In the context of the Second Amendment to the Constitution, the word "arms" means "weapons"--in particular firearms but also all weapons.


Now I will be blunt:

1 - Please direct me to the specific case law you are referencing where this is spelled out.

2 - Failing that, please direct me to the specific definition of arms which was definitely used by the founding fathers when composing this document, from a source they would have (and demonstrably did, as well as demonstrably used) had access to.

Thank you.



slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:04:41 PM)

TracyTaken it was pointed out to me that as a slave there are certain issues I am too would not understand.Now We both know that's bullshit ,but as I'm tired and really wanted a graceful way off this particular merry-go-round so be it ..it has been fun lets do it again some other time and being your all apparently armed to the teeth i hope no hard feelings(all i have is a slingshot,but i'm real good with it)



cloudboy -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:10:05 PM)


quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Guns are inanimate objects.


O, you're right, its the bullets that do the damage. Good point.



celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:10:57 PM)

quote:

I believe you are missing my point; I am not saying words have no meaning or infinite plasticity in all contexts! I am saying interpretation is complicated, and that absolute certainty is sometimes not available through certain statements, though some degree of relative certainty is.


I am not missing your point.  I am telling you that you are mistaken.  Words have plasticity, but only in moving between contexts.  In any one context, words have specific meaning, and there is no plasticity.

quote:


For instance, if I say:

"The cat was black."

Then it is fairly clear I am not referring to a dog, or a parachute, or a fork being black. But what precisely I meant by cat is up for debate; cat is a word that lacks specificity. Did I mean a house cat? Panther? Bobcat? Was I using slang and referring to one of my friends? And likewise, in that case, did I mean black as the racial group, or did I mean the literal color?

Obviously, there are not infinite meanings here, but likewise, there is not one absolute, clearly defined meaning with no uncertainty whatsoever unless you further question me about this. If that is all I wrote, and then died and vanished, how would you interpret that?

This is the question I ask.


That you were describing an object--perhaps a sentient being, perhaps an inanimate object--as lacking color.

However, this example is absurd, because it does not fit the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment.  Given the reference to militias, the definition of "arms" that I cite is the only definition that fits.  The text loses coherency when you apply any other definition.  Plasticity decreases to zero.

Thus, we do know, with certainty, what the founding fathers meant, and what they meant was that private ownership of weapons is an absolute right.





slvemike4u -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:16:38 PM)

Once more before i ABSOLUTLY leave this thread BULLSHIT



Real_Trouble -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:20:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112
However, this example is absurd, because it does not fit the Constitution, and especially the Second Amendment.  Given the reference to militias, the definition of "arms" that I cite is the only definition that fits.  The text loses coherency when you apply any other definition.  Plasticity decreases to zero.

Thus, we do know, with certainty, what the founding fathers meant, and what they meant was that private ownership of weapons is an absolute right.


Several key points, and this is my last post on this topic as well, as I think we've reached the same sort of point of disagreement.

1 - Why is the specific definition you cite the only one that fits?  Especially given that it came from a dictionary which did not exist when the document was written.

2 - Are you absolutely sure as to what they meant by arms?  There is zero chance, in any way, that they meant arms specifically to apply only to firearms or similar objects?  That it is impossible, under any circumstance or any condition, in any way, for this to be a statement that does not apply to something like an M1A1 Abrams, a nuclear weapon, or a highly contagious retrovirus designed to wipe out the human race (to extrapolate towards potential future weaponry)? 

And, if so, why are you so certain about this?  What is your evidence that this must be the definition, beyond what you cited?  Where are you citing me a source you are definitely sure that the founding fathers used - if I presented you with a dictionary definition referring to arms as very definitely (or almost definitely) firearms, would this be equally valid?

The point about the cat is not absurd; it does apply to the constitution, because the constitution is language, and language is based on context.  I would suggest that using a current Merriam-Webster dictionary definition, in fact, is completely absurd in the context of the second ammendment being written in the late 1700s, which is several hundred years before that definition was put to paper in the document you are pointing at as evidence of what it must absolutely mean!



Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:32:11 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: cloudboy
quote:

ORIGINAL: Kirata

Guns are inanimate objects.

O, you're right, its the bullets that do the damage. Good point.

Thank you. Nice work in your part, too. You're getting warmer.
 
K.
 



caitlyn -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:39:57 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u
Once more before i ABSOLUTLY leave this thread BULLSHIT

Other people's points of view are rarely bullshit. In an earlier post from you, it was insinuated that people wanting criminals to be disarmed in advance of legal gun owners, were somehow not intelligent.
 
These sorts of debate tactics ruin the chance that hearts and minds will ever be changed ... amazing how few people respond well to being told they are unintelligent people who's opinions are bullshit.
 
Try not to get moderated before you hit one-hundred posts. It's generally bad form. [;)] 



celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:44:38 PM)

quote:

if I presented you with a dictionary definition referring to arms as very definitely (or almost definitely) firearms, would this be equally valid?


Present me with the definition and lets find out....



celticlord2112 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 9:45:39 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: slvemike4u

Once more before i ABSOLUTLY leave this thread BULLSHIT


Ok...care to provide some elaboration so I know what you are talking about?



Kirata -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:11:38 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: celticlord2112

Ok...care to provide some elaboration so I know what you are talking about?

It's my fault. I said to him that as a slave, he didn't understand.
 
He sniffs about gun owners claiming to be law-abiding citizens, then saying they would not abide having their guns taken away. What's the matter with them? How dare they not obey? What's with this crazy business of people going "unfettered"? What the hell might they do? Who's to stop them from just shooting people who piss them off? Then he kinda stuck out his tongue and frumped off.
 
He seems unable to conceive of people taking responsibility for themselves.
 
K.
 



Archer -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:14:30 PM)

The fire shouting argument is akin to the laws against brandishing a firearm
They are not against the act of speach or the act of bearing arms but speak to the fact that your rights end when they butt up against the rights of the next person to not be injured.

The constructionist argument is circular. Constructionists are not against the legal and through the established method ammendment of the constitution. However baring a repeal of the second ammendment the conflict of a simple "Act" of congress falls short of the force needed to outlaw gun ownership.
When you get the 3/5 majority and subsequent ratification by the required state governments then I"ll make the choice to give up my guns, rebel against the government or leave the country.



Real0ne -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:22:26 PM)

quote:

ORIGINAL: Archer

The fire shouting argument is akin to the laws against brandishing a firearm
They are not against the act of speach or the act of bearing arms but speak to the fact that your rights end when they butt up against the rights of the next person to not be injured.




In either case the regulations are unconstitutional.  If the people and the theater were unhappy about that they could all file a suit, likewise with brandishing.

Thats the nice thing about rights, we dont need that many laws, just an honest judicial to up hold the constitution.








luckydog1 -> RE: Supreme Court Looks at Gun Ownership (3/19/2008 10:27:10 PM)

FR

there is no need to discuss what a militia is or who is in it.  The congress defined it in the US code


§ 3



TITLE 10 > Subtitle A > PART I > CHAPTER 13 > § 311. Militia: composition and classes
How Current is This?
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard. (b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and (2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.   



Page: <<   < prev  12 13 [14] 15 16   next >   >>

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.0625