Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2017, 08:48:04 AM
Quote
Congressional Democrats chose not to wait for all the facts to come in before immediately pushing for increased gun control measures following the Las Vegas shooting Sunday night that left 50 people dead and more than 400 injured.
Post by: Anthony on October 02, 2017, 09:48:28 AM
Morons.
Post by: nddons on October 02, 2017, 09:56:16 AM
Post by: invflatspin on October 02, 2017, 10:03:10 AM
Plenty of gun control to go around. Not very effective.
Post by: Sleepingsquirrel on October 02, 2017, 12:12:09 PM
This man was a pilot by the way, I heard a reporter tell us that his license had lapsed because he had not renewed his medical.
Post by: Little Joe on October 02, 2017, 12:44:37 PM
There is already gun control. There were no guns allowed at the concert venue, and the Mandalay Bay(like all resort/casinos) does not allow guns either.No wonder the shooter was able to kill and injure so many. He was in a "No Self Defense Zone". It was like shooting ducks in a barrel.
Plenty of gun control to go around. Not very effective.
Post by: Number7 on October 02, 2017, 01:16:22 PM
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2017, 01:22:30 PM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/10/02/college-professor-on-las-vegas-shooting-this-is-about-the-white-supremacist-pat-n2389563
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 02, 2017, 02:44:17 PM
And now the academics are chiming in with their special brand of ignorance:
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/10/02/college-professor-on-las-vegas-shooting-this-is-about-the-white-supremacist-pat-n2389563
That guy is an asshole. Check his history.
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2017, 02:55:57 PM
That guy is an asshole. Check his history.
Yep.
It's amazing the crap flowing from the progressives about this. Mindless crap. The bodies were still laying in the concert grounds and they are rushing to politicize this.
Post by: invflatspin on October 02, 2017, 04:15:27 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cbs-jettisons-legal-exec-over-193525211.html
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2017, 04:24:42 PM
CBS lawyer said what they were all thinking. Now she's seeking empl elsewhere.
https://www.yahoo.com/entertainment/cbs-jettisons-legal-exec-over-193525211.html
Comes from the environment they operate in. Networks like CBS have become such a progressive bastion that they start believing their own shit.
Post by: Lucifer on October 02, 2017, 04:26:55 PM
http://www.dailywire.com/news/21828/watch-cnn-reporter-bizarrely-reminds-viewers-emily-zanotti
Post by: invflatspin on October 02, 2017, 05:29:16 PM
Post by: invflatspin on October 02, 2017, 07:11:19 PM
https://www.yahoo.com/style/m/1cc7f0f1-89d7-3959-8d53-9e834ca34936/ss_dem-rep-says-he-won%27t.html
Just - wow, are these people stupid. It's like they want to lose all representation permanently.
Post by: Sleepingsquirrel on October 02, 2017, 11:32:01 PM
Post by: President in Exile YOLT on October 03, 2017, 06:04:02 AM
Why are the reporters calling this "The largest/worst mass shooting in MODERN history"? Is there a mass shooting that we don't know about in history?because they are too lazy too research and they are all under 35 and think history didn't exist before they were born
Post by: bflynn on October 03, 2017, 06:10:54 AM
Fast forward to today. We have much tighter gun control laws and more shootings, plus shootings with higher casualty counts. Maybe it isn't the guns pulling the trigger, maybe it's the people. For "some" reason people now believe that it is within the realm of permissible behavior to commit mass murder, it's ok to hurt others when you disagree with them or maybe just to go out with a bang.
Maybe we need to try people control instead?
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 06:11:06 AM
because they are too lazy too research and they are all under 35 and think history didn't exist before they were born
But...but...but.....the media elitist are NEVER wrong about anything! When in doubt, make it up!
It's all about ratings ya know.
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 06:17:11 AM
We are told that "gun control" is the answer. Yet, if I look back at history, that is not true. Before 1986, you could buy full automatic machine guns and yet they weren't used to commit mass murder. There was far less gun control than ever and far fewer shootings.
Fast forward to today. We have much tighter gun control laws and more shootings, plus shootings with higher casualty counts. Maybe it isn't the guns pulling the trigger, maybe it's the people. For "some" reason people now believe that it is within the realm of permissible behavior to commit mass murder, it's ok to hurt others when you disagree with them or maybe just to go out with a bang.
Maybe we need to try people control instead?
When you have the propagandist of the progressives (MSM) pumping fake news and trying to incite illicit behavior and create hysteria every day, those with weak minds will eventually act on it.
Post by: Number7 on October 03, 2017, 06:50:40 AM
That is the long term goal of communism. Replace the individual with an all powerful, all corrupt, central government capable of mass murder (Waco - Mount Carmel), perverted public education (common core, teaching five year old children about the glory of gender reassignment, forcing working people to pay for abortions of ignorant, lazy, imbeciles, etc) insane twisting of the constitution (Christian Bakery, personal privacy invasion, the TSA, etc) and the complete takeover of the media.
If we the people don't take the government back from the criminals running it and the criminals on the courts, there won't be an America, which is the immediate term goal of the democrat party these days.
Look how silent the majority of politicians are on the NFL kneeling stupidity. Even many so called, conservatives in politics seem afraid to buck the pathetic, snowflake, PC culture.
Speaking out against the utter racism of the left has nearly become criminal and will shortly, I predict. Black on white violence is overlooked in favor of pretending that white policemen are abusing every black person who walks down the street, while the facts paint black on black violence as the real culprit.
If democrats would quit killing people, violent crime would drop over 90% but we are not allowed to point that out because the violent leftist blacks will start a riot over the truth every time.
Post by: Mr Pou on October 03, 2017, 07:11:18 AM
If we the people don't take the government back from the criminals running it and the criminals on the courts, there won't be an America, which is the immediate term goal of the democrat party these days.
Look how silent the majority of politicians are on the NFL kneeling stupidity. Even many so called, conservatives in politics seem afraid to buck the pathetic, snowflake, PC culture.
The genie is already out of the bottle, I see no civil way to stuff it back in.
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 07:21:46 AM
https://www.newsbusters.org/blogs/nb/nicholas-fondacaro/2017/10/03/kimmel-gop-should-pray-god-forgive-them-helped-cause-shooting
And reading the comments on this article someone brilliantly pointed this out:
Quote
Jimmy your concern for all of those shot or killed in Chicago on a weekly basis is overwhelming. I'm touched by your concern... Oh wait...
Post by: invflatspin on October 03, 2017, 07:58:07 AM
https://www.yahoo.com/news/long-time-gun-owner-ashton-085809806.html
I recall a story about him maybe 6 years ago where he has armed security follow him anywhere he goes. Even when they went skiing at Vail, they had an armed guard skiing with them, and they got their own chair on the lift. Asshats.
Post by: gerhardt on October 03, 2017, 08:12:16 AM
We are told that "gun control" is the answer. Yet, if I look back at history, that is not true. Before 1986, you could buy full automatic machine guns and yet they weren't used to commit mass murder.
The requirements to purchase fully automatic firearms have not changed. You needed then and still need an FFL and a $200 tax stamp. What changed is that if you buy a fully auto firearm now it has to have been manufactured prior to 1986.
It didn't take long for dealers to come up with a way to get around this for the short-term. They went to law enforcement agencies nation-wide and offered to buy them brand-new fully automatic rifles in exchange for their pre-1986 rifles. Those are the ones you find for sale now.
But I doubt the guy in Vegas had a legal fully auto rifle. Likely, he illegally converted his rifles to full auto, or he was using a gat. The rate of fire didn't sound consistent so that's my guess. A gat is attached to the trigger guard and has a hand crank that's used to push the trigger faster than you can manually pull it with your finger. They're dirt cheap, maybe $40, and installs in seconds.
Hillary and her talk of silencers, talk about misinformation to the public who will believe her. You can try to talk logic and truth but anti-gun people aren't going to hear you. They've already made up their minds.
Just the other day I was pointing out to my wife that it's incredible that in such a short period of time we could find ammo back on the shelves, and at good prices too. Gun prices have plummeted back to normal levels. I told her that the shooting industry may talk like it's great but it's not good for their businesses. They loved every minute that Obama was in office. I can tell you that for a fact because I worked in the industry at the time. Personally, they despised the man and his politics, but it was GREAT for business.
We were perusing the gun section at a local store Friday night and talking about it. Looking at the expanse of guns and ammo I told my wife that it would change overnight if something really bad happened and the anti-gun people were able to get a podium where the masses would listen to them. I'm sorry that it happened in Vegas. I couldn't feel worse for them. I'm sorry that it happened at all.
Post by: jb1842 on October 03, 2017, 08:12:54 AM
Face boy wants gun control. But - he wants gun control for YOU, but not for HIM.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/long-time-gun-owner-ashton-085809806.html
I recall a story about him maybe 6 years ago where he has armed security follow him anywhere he goes. Even when they went skiing at Vail, they had an armed guard skiing with them, and they got their own chair on the lift. Asshats.
How many Hollywood liberals have made millions making/starring in movies that have guns and gun violence in them? Time to ban those types of movies!!!!
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 08:21:01 AM
In 2016 Chicago had 762 murders. In 2017 the number is up to 523 and we still have 3 months to go.
And Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws in the country. And most of these victims are minorities.
?????
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 08:22:09 AM
Post by: gerhardt on October 03, 2017, 08:28:28 AM
So where are these progressive bleeding heart types that demand gun control (for everyone but themselves) when it comes to the violence and murder rate in the progressive stronghold of Chicago?
In 2016 Chicago had 762 murders. In 2017 the number is up to 523 and we still have 3 months to go.
And Chicago has some of the strongest gun laws in the country. And most of these victims are minorities.
?????
First, race isn't a factor, don't make it one. But you're not saying anything new. This has been old news for years.
What's more interesting is why the crime rate in northern IL has been skyrocketing recently.
Post by: invflatspin on October 03, 2017, 09:22:28 AM
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/03/sean-hannity-from-las-vegas-to-puerto-rico-media-plays-politics-to-hurt-president-trump.html
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 09:23:36 AM
First, race isn't a factor, don't make it one.
I'm not making it one, I'm pointing out a FACT. A FACT that the progressives don't want mentioned because it doesn't suit their agenda.
But you're not saying anything new. This has been old news for years.
So we should just ignore it? Old news? Why is it not relevant to the discussion?
What's more interesting is why the crime rate in northern IL has been skyrocketing recently.
Recently?
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Crime_in_Chicago
Post by: Number7 on October 03, 2017, 10:44:30 AM
100% of the political commentary coming from Dems. Nada from the Republicans. All of them are descending into the morass of profiting from blood of innocent Americans.
http://www.foxnews.com/opinion/2017/10/03/sean-hannity-from-las-vegas-to-puerto-rico-media-plays-politics-to-hurt-president-trump.html
Bull shit.
Race IS THE factor.
If blacks stopped killing people the murder rate would plummet all on its own.
Black on Black crime is outrageous and black on white crime is curiously high, but white on black crime... not so much.
No wonder you want to put race off limits. It doesn't fit your presupposed narrative.
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 10:49:00 AM
Bull shit.
Race IS THE factor.
If blacks stopped killing people the murder rate would plummet all on its own.
Black on Black crime is outrageous and black on white crime is curiously high, but white on black crime... not so much.
No wonder you want to put race off limits. It doesn't fit your presupposed narrative.
I think you quoted the wrong guy........
Post by: Anthony on October 03, 2017, 11:19:33 AM
First, race isn't a factor, don't make it one. But you're not saying anything new. This has been old news for years.
What's more interesting is why the crime rate in northern IL has been skyrocketing recently.
Yeah, he meant to quote this guy. :)
As Number7 said, if politicians in Democrat controlled cities addressed black, on black violence, and murder, the stats on crime committed by the use of a gun would plummet. If we removed suicides from the "gun violence" stats the numbers would also drop dramatically.
Post by: invflatspin on October 03, 2017, 12:00:54 PM
Bull shit.
Race IS THE factor.
If blacks stopped killing people the murder rate would plummet all on its own.
Black on Black crime is outrageous and black on white crime is curiously high, but white on black crime... not so much.
No wonder you want to put race off limits. It doesn't fit your presupposed narrative.
Um - not sure why you are quoting me about a race theme posting? I didn't post, or say, or reference anything about any race.
I happen to agree that the murder rate among minorities(well, certain minorities) is a serious and overlooked problem. Just that I didn't write, or intimate anything to the contrary.
Post by: Lucifer on October 03, 2017, 12:34:36 PM
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/mattvespa/2017/10/03/fivethirtyeight-its-bad-policy-to-focus-solely-on-mass-shootings-to-reduce-gun-n2390032
Post by: nddons on October 03, 2017, 05:07:49 PM
because they are too lazy too research and they are all under 35 and think history didn't exist before they were bornBingo on both counts.
Post by: Anthony on October 03, 2017, 05:32:36 PM
The requirements to purchase fully automatic firearms have not changed. You needed then and still need an FFL and a $200 tax stamp. What changed is that if you buy a fully auto firearm now it has to have been manufactured prior to 1986.
The 1986 ban on newly made, or imported full auto rifles, due to their now VERY limited, finite supply made the cost astronomical. A basic full auto rifle now starts at around $20,000. These are now owned my relatively well off COLLECTORS now days. So the Feds by banning new ones have effectively made them unaffordable for the vast majority of people. I am not into NFA, Class IIII rifles. However, why shouldn't the law abiding be allowed to own them, and afford to own them?
Post by: Number7 on October 03, 2017, 08:11:15 PM
I think you quoted the wrong guy........I did.
Post by: Number7 on October 03, 2017, 08:11:57 PM
Um - not sure why you are quoting me about a race theme posting? I didn't post, or say, or reference anything about any race.
I happen to agree that the murder rate among minorities(well, certain minorities) is a serious and overlooked problem. Just that I didn't write, or intimate anything to the contrary.
You are right.
I quoted the wrong post by accident.
Post by: Lucifer on October 04, 2017, 06:57:26 AM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 04, 2017, 03:28:28 PM
Post by: Anthony on October 05, 2017, 07:58:13 AM
Post by: Lucifer on October 05, 2017, 08:02:29 AM
In fact, most progressive strongholds in the US have very restrictive gun laws....and the highest crime rates.
Post by: Lucifer on October 05, 2017, 08:05:31 AM
Post by: bflynn on October 05, 2017, 08:10:03 AM
It's a good video, but not really applicable to this situation. This guy was just interested in raining down fire from nearly a 1/4 mile away. I believe he was not interested in accuracy since he was shooting into a pen that folks could not easily escape/
I think the guy's point is that bump stocks DO give semi-automatic weapons a similar fire rate as fully automatic weapons and that automatic weapons are highly inaccurate when trying to shoot something specific so don't be stupid and get one. Unpsoken was - unless you just want to throw bullets and don't care what they hit, like the shooter did.
I never knew that bump stocks existed. Now that I have seen them and understand them, my opinion is that they exist solely to circumvent existing law and they should be illegal to manufacture or to possess.
BTW, read something yesterday that this might have been a psychotic break as a side effect to psychotropic drugs. Sad, it should have been preventable.
Post by: Lucifer on October 05, 2017, 09:03:36 AM
I never knew that bump stocks existed. Now that I have seen them and understand them, my opinion is that they exist solely to circumvent existing law and they should be illegal to manufacture or to possess.
Sorry, disagree.
This is a very slippery slope, and one the progressives are hoping we start sliding down. It's the same argument that we shouldn't be allowed clips with more than 5 rounds, that somehow by limiting clip size one could prevent a mass shooting. Bullshit.
And it also follows the bullshit mantra about "assault weapons". Since there is really no such thing as an assault weapon it gives the left a broad brush to make any gun they choose illegal.
The second amendment is a very clear and concise: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
Post by: invflatspin on October 05, 2017, 09:40:46 AM
Post by: Lucifer on October 05, 2017, 10:02:16 AM
I don't have a weapon which would benefit from one of those stocks, but if the feds have the massive firepower we know they have, I surely don't want to restrict the people from something which may prove useful to the citizen-soldier.
http://www.washingtontimes.com/news/2016/jan/7/golden-hammer-feds-spending-millions-to-arm-agenci/
https://www.bostonglobe.com/opinion/2016/06/25/the-fda-stockpiling-military-weapons-and-not-alone/iGbHhnnkTbsSMnnO23obiI/story.html
https://www.thenewamerican.com/usnews/constitution/item/22343-government-agencies-are-stockpiling-body-armor-tactical-gear-ammo
https://www.thoughtco.com/firearms-and-arrest-authority-federal-agencies-3321279
http://www.patheos.com/blogs/markmeckler/2016/06/why-is-the-federal-government-stockpiling-military-weapons-for-its-non-military-agencies/
Post by: bflynn on October 05, 2017, 12:58:34 PM
Sorry, disagree.
This is a very slippery slope, and one the progressives are hoping we start sliding down. It's the same argument that we shouldn't be allowed clips with more than 5 rounds, that somehow by limiting clip size one could prevent a mass shooting. Bullshit.
And it also follows the bullshit mantra about "assault weapons". Since there is really no such thing as an assault weapon it gives the left a broad brush to make any gun they choose illegal.
The second amendment is a very clear and concise: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."
I never used the term assault rifle, I am referring to the legal definition of machine gun. I never said anything about the number of rounds a magazine holds as it it meaningless. Someone with a moderate level of skill can change magazines quickly enough as to make limiting their size a useless gesture.
It's actually not really a slippery slope. There is already agreement to outlaw rifles that inaccurately shoot a high number of rounds quickly. At the time they were called machine guns and most people agree that they aren't needed by the average citizen. You can argue that they are, but the law is what it is and all it would mean is that you are in the minority.
I should be clearer - I believe bump stocks were built specifically to evade the law and they enable rapid fire from a semi automatic weapon. They should be illegal, but they are not. They break the spirit of the law but they do not break the law - the rifle still requires multiple (rapid) operations of the trigger for each shot.
This is not a militia argument, it is a logic argument. We have a law to get rid of rapid fire guns. The stock is a new invention which enables rapid fire guns. If it had existed in 1986, I have no doubt it would have been included in wording of the law.
Post by: Little Joe on October 05, 2017, 01:29:32 PM
Basing a new law or regulation on the basis of an existing law regulation is the very definition of "slippery slope".
It's actually not really a slippery slope. There is already agreement to outlaw rifles that inaccurately shoot a high number of rounds quickly.
Post by: Lucifer on October 05, 2017, 01:34:14 PM
I never used the term assault rifle, I am referring to the legal definition of machine gun. I never said anything about the number of rounds a magazine holds as it it meaningless. Someone with a moderate level of skill can change magazines quickly enough as to make limiting their size a useless gesture.
My example was to show by continuing to play this unending game with the progressives this only allows them to attempt to place more and more restrictions on guns. They invented the term "assault rifle". What constitutes an assault rifle? Whatever the hell they want to make up on the fly. Start off with AR15's and AK47's (they look scary) then before you know it a .22 rifle at WalMart is classified as an assault rifle.
The clip size was another attempt by the progressives to get the camel's nose under the tent. Again, pure fucking nonsense, but they had an end to their means.
It's actually not really a slippery slope. There is already agreement to outlaw rifles that inaccurately shoot a high number of rounds quickly. At the time they were called machine guns and most people agree that they aren't needed by the average citizen. You can argue that they are, but the law is what it is and all it would mean is that you are in the minority.
OK, please define "most people"? Do you have some evidence to back up that assertion? Where in what law (or constitution) does it say that "most people" will agree on who needs what gun or not? Care to cite that one?
And yes, we have laws on the books for fully automatic weapons, I never said we didn't. But a bumpstock weapon is not a fully automatic weapon as the law prescribes. And the law doesn't say "any weapon that may appear to be" or any nonsense such as that.
I should be clearer - I believe bump stocks were built specifically to evade the law and they enable rapid fire from a semi automatic weapon. They should be illegal, but they are not. They break the spirit of the law but they do not break the law - the rifle still requires multiple (rapid) operations of the trigger for each shot.
And I disagree. A bumpstock was built to be.....a bumpstock. The people I know who are arms dealers (licensed) don't look at them as a law evasion device and neither do I.
This is not a militia argument, it is a logic argument. We have a law to get rid of rapid fire guns. The stock is a new invention which enables rapid fire guns. If it had existed in 1986, I have no doubt it would have been included in wording of the law.
I used the second amendment to back up my side of the debate. How are the words "shall not be infringed" not clear to anyone who understands the english language? And the constitution does not have an amendment or language that allows for a "logical argument".
And yes, we have laws on fully automatic weapons. Want to add the bump stock to that law? That's a job for the legislative branch to approve then sent to the President for signature. So let that process begin if so be it, but frankly I don't see it getting anywhere.
Trey Gowdy said this
Quote
"We already have controls on what kind of guns you can have, where you can have them, when you can use them and what individuals can possess even a single bullet. So the question to me is whether or not current controls are adequate and there are two fundamental questions that you should put your finger on," Gowdy said. "What law had it existed at the time would have prevented this mass killing or another mass killing. What law, but for its lack of implementation could have prevented this. That's one question. The other question is, among all the panoply of current gun laws, how are we doing enforcing them?"
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/10/05/trey-gowdy-responds-to-new-calls-for-gun-control-n2390792
Post by: asechrest on October 05, 2017, 01:53:08 PM
I barely know what a bump stock is, so I don't yet have an opinion on it. But I am reading that the NRA is supporting restrictions on it. I'm real surprised by that.
Post by: nddons on October 05, 2017, 02:34:26 PM
My example was to show by continuing to play this unending game with the progressives this only allows them to attempt to place more and more restrictions on guns. They invented the term "assault rifle". What constitutes an assault rifle? Whatever the hell they want to make up on the fly. Start off with AR15's and AK47's (they look scary) then before you know it a .22 rifle at WalMart is classified as an assault rifle.For all that is holy, can you please refer to the detachable bullet carrying device as a magazine and not a clip? M-1 Garands have clips.
The clip size was another attempt by the progressives to get the camel's nose under the tent. Again, pure fucking nonsense, but they had an end to their means.
OK, please define "most people"? Do you have some evidence to back up that assertion? Where in what law (or constitution) does it say that "most people" will agree on who needs what gun or not? Care to cite that one?
And yes, we have laws on the books for fully automatic weapons, I never said we didn't. But a bumpstock weapon is not a fully automatic weapon as the law prescribes. And the law doesn't say "any weapon that may appear to be" or any nonsense such as that.
And I disagree. A bumpstock was built to be.....a bumpstock. The people I know who are arms dealers (licensed) don't look at them as a law evasion device and neither do I.
I used the second amendment to back up my side of the debate. How are the words "shall not be infringed" not clear to anyone who understands the english language? And the constitution does not have an amendment or language that allows for a "logical argument".
And yes, we have laws on fully automatic weapons. Want to add the bump stock to that law? That's a job for the legislative branch to approve then sent to the President for signature. So let that process begin if so be it, but frankly I don't see it getting anywhere.
Trey Gowdy said this
https://townhall.com/tipsheet/katiepavlich/2017/10/05/trey-gowdy-responds-to-new-calls-for-gun-control-n2390792
Sorry, just a hang-up of mine.
Post by: nddons on October 05, 2017, 02:39:57 PM
In bflynn's defense, it has been affirmed by the Supreme Court that reasonable restrictions are not counter-constitutional. Further, even the founders recognized that some of the rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute, and regularly require reasonable limits that allow for a functioning governed society.I saw those at the NEA convention in Indianapolis a few years ago, and my brother and I (both life Members of the NRA) thought that they were ridiculous and designed to bypass the Class 3 rules of the NFA. I'd be OK for them to be treated as NFA components.
I barely know what a bump stock is, so I don't yet have an opinion on it. But I am reading that the NRA is supporting restrictions on it. I'm real surprised by that.
Post by: invflatspin on October 05, 2017, 03:14:24 PM
A) Any rights restriction based by a court is to protect the rights of others, so that all are not harmed. The prototypical "FIRE!" in a crowded theater presents a clear, immediate danger to others. Restrictions like this have a rights-based defense. In the case of the 2nd amendment, the number, type, and quality of weaponry owned by John Doe has no affect on his neighbor Jane Smith. John Doe should be allowed to have the arsenal he can afford, control, and maintain. We might as consideration of being fair, prohibit the ownership of NBC type capable weapons by the populace, due to the nature of their special handling, and potential for catastrophic failure.
B) Read how all the BOR amendments are written. Then - go back and read the text of the 2nd amendment again. First, unlike any other amendment, the framers thought it was necessary to give an explanation of the right of self-defense: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. In this statement, they are telling their future legislators and judges just why we are writing this. The 4th amendment uses the word 'unreasonable' in it. Allowing of course the warrant for specific things for a specific cause. The 5th is boilerplate. Not very exciting, or strange there. 1st gives a little bit of wiggle room where it says 'congress shall make no law'... That doesn't mean they can't sway, or endorse, or petition, or opine about religious and speech freedom, it just means they can't make any law. And the courts/president are open to dig as deep into religious and speech limitations as they can, without a textual basis from congress.
Now, on to the 2nd. It is a marvel of straight-jacket restriction. It doesn't say 'congress shall make no law', it doesn't wiggle around with 'reasonable' it doesn't limit the power of the people in ANY way! 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. BAM! Right in the kisser. This is the framers, telling future govt hacks and 'crats - 'look, you can do NOTHING to the people who keep and bear arms'. Having written that, there is no method for the SCOTUS, pres, states, congress, 'crats, or anyone else to regulate arms ownership. It just doesn't exist, and the SCOTUS restrictions on any basis of 'reasonable' falls flat. It is interpretive govt, where powerful rights have been unlawfully removed from the citizenry. This is not interpretation, it isn't contextual limitation, it is flat out taking away a right which has been said to be uninfringed.
By law, from the 2nd amendment I can have as much and as big a weapon as I can afford. So long as I am a member of a militia(US citizen, able to hold, load, aim, fire a weapon, unaffiliated with another nation, and older than 16, but younger than 65) I can have a bazooka, or any other thing I can buy/make/build.
So, not a fan of 'reasonable' restriction when it comes to firearms. The restriction fails on both A and B basis.
Post by: Lucifer on October 05, 2017, 04:42:42 PM
Quote
We all know the drill here: you give a Democrat an inch and they take several hundred miles. Bump stocks are banned, but what about so-called high-capacity magazines? Why not military-looking rifles? Why not certain types of ammunition? Why not placing limits on how many guns you can buy? Why not a ban on firearms? This is the road we’re going to go down with these people. We all see their allies on the anti-gun Left; they want to end gun ownership. They want to gut the Second Amendment and put our Constitution through the shredder. Bump stocks are mainly used for recreational shooting and have been—until this incident—rarely used in gun crimes. Mass shootings are still rare and are not the majority of gun crimes in America. Not even close. Background checks wouldn’t have stopped Paddock either. There’s talk from the Left about the cumulative effect of anti-gun legislation having an impact on reducing gun violence. That’s pure crap and bad policy. It’s a fancy way of saying it won’t do anything, but we can score political points for having done something…with consequences that likely weren’t considered when pondering such shoddy gun legislation.
Post by: acrogimp on October 05, 2017, 04:43:57 PM
They are at risk of fucking up the 2nd amendment - Ryan and McConnell must go and they must go now.
We are seeing epic levels of stupid from all sides, I cannot stand this shit anymore.
'Gimp
Post by: Jim Logajan on October 05, 2017, 05:46:40 PM
A) Any rights restriction based by a court is to protect the rights of others, so that all are not harmed. The prototypical "FIRE!" in a crowded theater presents a clear, immediate danger to others. Restrictions like this have a rights-based defense.
Careful. The "Fire!" in a crowded theater argument comes from SCOTUS justice Oliver Wendell Holmes in the notorious case of Schenck vs. United States. In that case the argument was used to uphold the following:
"Defendant's criticism of the draft was not protected by the First Amendment, because it created a clear and present danger to the enlistment and recruiting service of the U.S. armed forces during a state of war."
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Schenck_v._United_States)
The "Fire!" argument was invented to suppress speech that expressed opinions that were critical of government policy. The very thing that the First Amendment was originally intended to protect! Here's a couple of articles that talk about the bad law of Holmes (which he much later back-pedaled on):
http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/25/the-minority-leader-who-cried-wolf-in-a (http://reason.com/blog/2017/08/25/the-minority-leader-who-cried-wolf-in-a)
https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/ (https://www.popehat.com/2012/09/19/three-generations-of-a-hackneyed-apologia-for-censorship-are-enough/)
Ironically the argument that speech that presents a "clear, immediate danger to others" is not protected by the First Amendment was first used by conservatives to silence socialists and 95 years later is being used by socialists to silence conservatives.
Post by: invflatspin on October 05, 2017, 06:05:42 PM
Post by: EppyGA - White Christian Domestic Terrorist on October 05, 2017, 06:36:18 PM
Post by: asechrest on October 05, 2017, 07:17:43 PM
Many would argue that the Constitution was designed as a government-limiting document. I think that misrepresents history, and suggests a vision and uniformity of thought and purpose that I don't believe existed at that time. Many of the framers argued for great federal powers; far more than were eventually granted. Whether you believe it was designed that way or not, the Constitution seems now to be understood as a government-limiting device.
Given that, you might be surprised to note that there is only one part of the Constitution that absolutely and unequivocally bars the government -- by literal statement -- from regulating one of the constitutionally protected rights:
"Congress shall make no law..."
That's right, the First Amendment. Not the Second. Not the others.
Now, well more than 200 years later, while we can argue original intent of the Founders -- and I don't intend to snub my nose at Originalists (at least not at this time) -- the primary facility by which we understand official interpretation of the words of our Constitution is the Supreme Court. And yet, even with regard to rights protected by the First Amendment, where it explicitly bars federal law respecting the abridgment of those rights, the Supreme Court has regularly and consistently, for a long time, upheld reasonable regulation upon them.
And so I don't find the Second Amendment to be especially more forceful in its intent than the First, given the context in which I understand the Constitution as a document that limits federal power. The First is far more in-your-face, and yet our interpreting body has deemed our constitutionally-protected rights something less than absolute. Is that right or wrong to do? I'm not sure, but your argument that the language of the Second is special does not have me convinced.
I have some issues with 'reasonable' restrictions. While I understand the concept that not all rights can be unlimited, the 2nd amendment is one of those rights where there are two glaring problems with judicial activism.
A) Any rights restriction based by a court is to protect the rights of others, so that all are not harmed. The prototypical "FIRE!" in a crowded theater presents a clear, immediate danger to others. Restrictions like this have a rights-based defense. In the case of the 2nd amendment, the number, type, and quality of weaponry owned by John Doe has no affect on his neighbor Jane Smith. John Doe should be allowed to have the arsenal he can afford, control, and maintain. We might as consideration of being fair, prohibit the ownership of NBC type capable weapons by the populace, due to the nature of their special handling, and potential for catastrophic failure.
B) Read how all the BOR amendments are written. Then - go back and read the text of the 2nd amendment again. First, unlike any other amendment, the framers thought it was necessary to give an explanation of the right of self-defense: A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free State. In this statement, they are telling their future legislators and judges just why we are writing this. The 4th amendment uses the word 'unreasonable' in it. Allowing of course the warrant for specific things for a specific cause. The 5th is boilerplate. Not very exciting, or strange there. 1st gives a little bit of wiggle room where it says 'congress shall make no law'... That doesn't mean they can't sway, or endorse, or petition, or opine about religious and speech freedom, it just means they can't make any law. And the courts/president are open to dig as deep into religious and speech limitations as they can, without a textual basis from congress.
Now, on to the 2nd. It is a marvel of straight-jacket restriction. It doesn't say 'congress shall make no law', it doesn't wiggle around with 'reasonable' it doesn't limit the power of the people in ANY way! 'the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. BAM! Right in the kisser. This is the framers, telling future govt hacks and 'crats - 'look, you can do NOTHING to the people who keep and bear arms'. Having written that, there is no method for the SCOTUS, pres, states, congress, 'crats, or anyone else to regulate arms ownership. It just doesn't exist, and the SCOTUS restrictions on any basis of 'reasonable' falls flat. It is interpretive govt, where powerful rights have been unlawfully removed from the citizenry. This is not interpretation, it isn't contextual limitation, it is flat out taking away a right which has been said to be uninfringed.
By law, from the 2nd amendment I can have as much and as big a weapon as I can afford. So long as I am a member of a militia(US citizen, able to hold, load, aim, fire a weapon, unaffiliated with another nation, and older than 16, but younger than 65) I can have a bazooka, or any other thing I can buy/make/build.
So, not a fan of 'reasonable' restriction when it comes to firearms. The restriction fails on both A and B basis.
Post by: invflatspin on October 05, 2017, 08:44:44 PM
Further to this, the declaration of independence, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the specific powers granted to the legislature work to limit govt. It was designed and intended to limit govt. The central theme was always that the ultimate power was retained by the people. Hence, the 2nd amendment.
As for the 1st, it covers several rights lumped into one amendment. Speech, assembly, press, religion. he constitution was just barely powerful enough to get the job of running the states federal business and no more. They knew the Articles weren't enough to bridge the independence of the states. When the continental congress met, one of the biggest challenges was not stepping on the rights of Virginia, PA, MA, and the Carolinas. All of them had powerful, and well run central governors. None of them wanted to give up much power to the feds. The representatives had to make decisions on the fly, then take the construction back to their states for approval. There was no way that those states were going to give up authority to a central government. Which is why we didn't have a standing army, and we DID have a militia(citizen soldier) and a navy.
With the passage of time, and the expansion of the federal into every facet and minutia of our lives, it's very hard to think that the fed guv was intended to be limited. Just look at how small the duties of the exec are. Commander in chief, appointments to depts, clemency, foreign affairs/ambassadors, and judges(with advise and consent of course). The framers absolutely and positively did not want any form of imperialism. And yet - here we are, with an imperial president since 1936.
Post by: Number7 on October 06, 2017, 06:50:33 AM
Constructionists simply examine the actual words instead of imputing opinions into the constitution.
Clarence Thomas is hated by informed, but misguided liberals because he looks only at the actual law that was written and refuses to allow intent to deconstruct construction. One of his comments that I loved was, "IF the state intended the law to say what you are claiming, then it should written it that way."
Conservatives see every infringement of personal liberty to be exactly what it is, the intent of the current population of legislators and judges to limit the freedom of citizens in favor of the power of the state.
Liberals see every liberty enjoyed by citizens (with the exception of freedom to abort babies, then liberals correct their exception by using the power of the state to force other people to pay for the choice to abort) as an abomination against the purity of the state.
Constructionists see the constitution as a document that accurately places very clear and specific limits on power of government to intrude on the freedom of the citizens. That infuriates liberals because it makes something else greater than government and that intrudes upon their intent to subjugate the individual to the agenda of the state.
Conservatives see public education as a miasma of stupidity and ignorance, surrounding a black hole of waste and forced compliance. Liberals see a wonderful, nirvana where every child is indoctrinated into the kind of robot that worships whatever they are brainwashed into worshipping. Liberals HATE home schooling because it bypasses the forced indoctrination system put carefully in place to make sure no child is left to think on their own.
The Second Amendment was properly constructed to clearly limit just how totalitarian the government could morph and to warn the government about the risks of trying. Now liberals FEAR armed citizens because they are so close to their goal of ending all individual rights in favor group think, group speak and forced group behavior.
It is no wonder that free speech ad gun ownership are the true enemies of democrats. They can't have their way as long as people can speak up and fight back against the tyranny of the left.
Post by: nddons on October 06, 2017, 07:18:12 AM
Disagree entirely. The first attempt at govt was the 'Articles of Confederation'. That was a watery, loose, group of rules that didn't bind the independent states to anything. It was a govt of convenience, and would be the model for the eventual Constitution of today. Never ratified completely, it wasn't strong enough to do anything for or with the independent states.Very well said.
Further to this, the declaration of independence, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the specific powers granted to the legislature work to limit govt. It was designed and intended to limit govt. The central theme was always that the ultimate power was retained by the people. Hence, the 2nd amendment.
As for the 1st, it covers several rights lumped into one amendment. Speech, assembly, press, religion. he constitution was just barely powerful enough to get the job of running the states federal business and no more. They knew the Articles weren't enough to bridge the independence of the states. When the continental congress met, one of the biggest challenges was not stepping on the rights of Virginia, PA, MA, and the Carolinas. All of them had powerful, and well run central governors. None of them wanted to give up much power to the feds. The representatives had to make decisions on the fly, then take the construction back to their states for approval. There was no way that those states were going to give up authority to a central government. Which is why we didn't have a standing army, and we DID have a militia(citizen soldier) and a navy.
With the passage of time, and the expansion of the federal into every facet and minutia of our lives, it's very hard to think that the fed guv was intended to be limited. Just look at how small the duties of the exec are. Commander in chief, appointments to depts, clemency, foreign affairs/ambassadors, and judges(with advise and consent of course). The framers absolutely and positively did not want any form of imperialism. And yet - here we are, with an imperial president since 1936.
Post by: invflatspin on October 06, 2017, 07:36:15 AM
Post by: asechrest on October 06, 2017, 01:51:17 PM
Disagree entirely. The first attempt at govt was the 'Articles of Confederation'. That was a watery, loose, group of rules that didn't bind the independent states to anything. It was a govt of convenience, and would be the model for the eventual Constitution of today. Never ratified completely, it wasn't strong enough to do anything for or with the independent states.
Right. The Articles of Confederation were wholly inadequate. In fact, many of the Framers were gravely concerned with The Continental Congress' ability at the time to handle the responsibilities of the nation - collecting taxes, paying debts, regulating commerce, etc. Many of them argued for a federal government that would today be considered to have far too much authority.
The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity
-James Madison
What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes; and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt
-John Jay
Madison even suggested that Congress have approval power over any state law. So it seems, perhaps, that the Framers didn't agree with Grover Norquist's bathtub opinion. The Constitution was not designed as a way to limit government. On the contrary, it was designed to expand the central government's powers significantly beyond what was recognized at the time. Now I'd never suggest the Framers sought an imperial government. But neither does history support the opposing extreme view; that the "purpose" of the Constitution was to severely limit federal power. The greatest protections against federal overreach were offered not by the literal restrictions of the Constitution, but by the incredible structure of our governing system - a bicameral congress, independent executive, veto power, etc.
Further to this, the declaration of independence, the ninth and tenth amendments, and the specific powers granted to the legislature work to limit govt. It was designed and intended to limit govt. The central theme was always that the ultimate power was retained by the people. Hence, the 2nd amendment.
As for the 1st, it covers several rights lumped into one amendment. Speech, assembly, press, religion. he constitution was just barely powerful enough to get the job of running the states federal business and no more. They knew the Articles weren't enough to bridge the independence of the states. When the continental congress met, one of the biggest challenges was not stepping on the rights of Virginia, PA, MA, and the Carolinas. All of them had powerful, and well run central governors. None of them wanted to give up much power to the feds. The representatives had to make decisions on the fly, then take the construction back to their states for approval. There was no way that those states were going to give up authority to a central government. Which is why we didn't have a standing army, and we DID have a militia(citizen soldier) and a navy.
With the passage of time, and the expansion of the federal into every facet and minutia of our lives, it's very hard to think that the fed guv was intended to be limited. Just look at how small the duties of the exec are. Commander in chief, appointments to depts, clemency, foreign affairs/ambassadors, and judges(with advise and consent of course). The framers absolutely and positively did not want any form of imperialism. And yet - here we are, with an imperial president since 1936.
As you know, the Bill of Rights came a couple of years after Ratification, and it is a statement of limitations on governmental power, written at the behest of several states to protect individual liberties. And this is why I find dubious your contention about the wording of the Second Amendment and your subsequent suggestion that it deserves special treatment over the others. It's the First Amendment that is most strongly-worded with respect to the intent of the Bill of Rights, by LITERALLY forbidding Congress from making laws with respect to abridgment of the rights stated therein. No other amendment makes that literal statement.
And yet, the Supreme Court has regularly affirmed that the individual rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute. Which happens, by the way, to mirror the opinions of at least some of the Framers.
Post by: bflynn on October 07, 2017, 02:55:56 AM
As you know, the Bill of Rights came a couple of years after Ratification
A historical quibble - the Constitution, including be Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Although 9 states had voted to ratify it by the summer of 1788, more than half conditioned the ratification upon the addition of the Bill of Right. Therefore the Bill of Rights was not added a couple of years after, but rather as a requirement to gain ratification. Until the Bill of Rights was added, the ratification bills passed by the states were not completed.
Post by: bflynn on October 07, 2017, 03:06:40 AM
Conservatives see every infringement of personal liberty to be exactly what it is, the intent of the current population of legislators and judges to limit the freedom of citizens in favor of the power of the state.
Liberals see every liberty enjoyed by citizens (with the exception of freedom to abort babies, then liberals correct their exception by using the power of the state to force other people to pay for the choice to abort) as an abomination against the purity of the state.
Your opinions on this are decidedly partisan and display a lack of understanding of your opponent. I also suspect a lack of caring that you lack understanding.
I do not think legislators and judges intend to steal freedom from the people. It a situation of how moral the people are. A moral people regulate themselves but immoral ones require laws. Some legislatures are trying to use laws to require a behavior that they believe people should morally already be doing. Now I disagree with them on the basis that they have no right to force their morale code to be law for everyone. Do you agree? I hope so because next I will say that it is both the left and the right that do this.
The left does not view liberty as an abomination. They love liberty, they love the right to do your own thing. Unless your own thing goes against their moral code, in which case there are many on the left who say you must be destroyed. That isn't hating liberty, it's a different moral code and a lack of respect for others. The moral code would be irrelevant if the respect was present...that is true on both sides.
Who is right? I think the middle is. The extremists on either side are wrong but they rarely acknowledge they are wrong and rarely even recognize that they are extreme. How do you know who the extremists are? The answer is by absence. If you cannot see them on your side of the aisle, you're it.
Post by: asechrest on October 07, 2017, 07:04:54 AM
A historical quibble - the Constitution, including be Bill of Rights was ratified in 1791. Although 9 states had voted to ratify it by the summer of 1788, more than half conditioned the ratification upon the addition of the Bill of Right. Therefore the Bill of Rights was not added a couple of years after, but rather as a requirement to gain ratification. Until the Bill of Rights was added, the ratification bills passed by the states were not completed.
That's mostly fair. The document was binding after 9 states ratified, though.
Post by: Rush on October 07, 2017, 07:41:23 AM
Your opinions on this are decidedly partisan and display a lack of understanding of your opponent. I also suspect a lack of caring that you lack understanding.
I do not think legislators and judges intend to steal freedom from the people. It a situation of how moral the people are. A moral people regulate themselves but immoral ones require laws. Some legislatures are trying to use laws to require a behavior that they believe people should morally already be doing. Now I disagree with them on the basis that they have no right to force their morale code to be law for everyone. Do you agree? I hope so because next I will say that it is both the left and the right that do this.
The left does not view liberty as an abomination. They love liberty, they love the right to do your own thing. Unless your own thing goes against their moral code, in which case there are many on the left who say you must be destroyed. That isn't hating liberty, it's a different moral code and a lack of respect for others. The moral code would be irrelevant if the respect was present...that is true on both sides.
Who is right? I think the middle is. The extremists on either side are wrong but they rarely acknowledge they are wrong and rarely even recognize that they are extreme. How do you know who the extremists are? The answer is by absence. If you cannot see them on your side of the aisle, you're it.
Technically you are right about Number7's post as I'm sure everyone, especially libertarians, is aware. But his point is essentially correct. I "liked" it because of what he said about the second amendment.
Liberals - in theory - favor social and personal liberty. I say "in theory" because they so often twist it around backwards. An example, liberal feminists say a woman should have the right to a full time job just like a man. So far so good... but then they go to the other extreme and make it not okay to be a stay at home housewife. Through social shaming (remember Hillary's cookie baking comment?) and through eroding the economy so it's harder for households to live on one income, they now have forced that so called "right" on women. It's no longer a choice therefore no longer a freedom.
The far left seems always to do this. The "right" to have an abortion is mandatory in Communist China, the freedom to have sex with whomever you want has become public shaming for those who do not choose to celebrate these "alternative sexualities" and on and on.
Nevertheless your point stands and I almost addressed it myself but decided to let it slide. I think most people are as you say, most people who call themselves liberals or Democratics actually are live and let live when the rubber meets the road, at least those I personally know. It's the extremists I'm talking about here - but unfortunately they can drive change. (Extremist authoritarians drove prohibition for example.)
Maybe a better way to articulate what the left believes in, is that they simply love to impose their code on everyone else. (Yes the far right does this too.) I think it goes beyond moral code. There is cultural convention and there is just good manners. A large part of the divide today is that diversity results in differing conventions and manners in addition to morals and I don't mean racial and ethnic diversity although they apply, but perhaps the bigger problem today is what I broadly label as rural vs urban or producers vs consumers (example coal plants vs anyone with electricity in their home that has no real clue how it gets there) and on and on. There is no hard divide and we call them "liberals and conservatives" or "left and right" but it's really too complex for most labels. I like "individualist vs authoritarian" (or collectivist) but even those words aren't perfect.
The point is, the left tends to become authoritarian in imposing their code even in the areas they believe in individual liberty. Example you can marry whomever you want but now we are going to force a private company to bake you a cake. That's not believing in individual liberty as a value: that's believing in creating a society where everyone celebrates deviations from typical whether you want to or not- and that is problematic because it actually goes against the individual liberty of those who don't agree with you. Plus it's believing in an unnatural utopia. (Make no mistake - I'm not saying deviant sexuality is unnatural, I'm saying what's unnatural is the utopian idea we can all get along. It turns out all kinds of animals engage in homosexual acts so it actually is kind of natural and normal if only a small percentage of the population but I digress.)
There is a lot of talk about doing away with the conventional left-right designations because they are so imperfect in labeling most of us which you suggest the term "the middle" but as we all know the problem with that is it includes those who don't have opinions who are very different from those with extreme opinions left and right who average out to the middle.
Ronald Reagan gave a speech I don't know when but I remember watching it on TV. He said it's not about left or right, it's about descending down into tyranny or rising upward to freedom. He was talking about the visual political diamond with authoritarianism at the bottom, libertarianism at the top and the left right wings.
But here is an even more insightful discussion, I tried to quote part of it but I cannot seem to do that on this iPad, but he proposes that the real distinction is between those with a lot of power and the rest of us. He calls it the tension between promoting or dismantling the hierarchy.
He says that both the left and the right believe in the existence of Capitalism and the State, they just disagree on which should be the more powerful. But they're both wrong: in reality, the State and the Capitalists have always been a symbiotic relationship. The true polarization is not Capitalists vs Statists, it's the upper hierarchy vs the rest of us.
This is a brilliant analysis and I'm not going to claim I knew all this before I read it just now but I have always had an argument with my left-wing brother when he talks about evil rich big corporations and I keep telling him the big corporations can only be evil and powerful because they are in bed with government. I've also kept saying through this last election cycle that the real enemy is the beltway insiders with the politicians corrupt connections to private corporations such as Hillary's arrangements with drug companies to keep HIV med prices high in the U.S. to make herself and the drug companies even richer at the expense of sick patients or all of us who pay insurance premiums.
I think this guy frickin nails it.
https://www.theatlantic.com/politics/archive/2014/06/the-left-right-political-spectrum-is-bogus/373139/
Post by: bflynn on October 07, 2017, 09:14:49 AM
That's mostly fair. The document was binding after 9 states ratified, though.
Yes, but 5 of those first 9 states ratified contingent on the Bill of Rights being added. It was not an afterthought, only 4 states approved of the Constitution without the Bill of Right. To present it as an incidental add on after the fact is not accurate.
Post by: invflatspin on October 07, 2017, 10:43:13 AM
It has been said, by way of objection to a bill of rights....that in the Federal Government they are unnecessary, because the powers are enumerated, and it follows, that all that are not granted by the constitution are retained; that the constitution is a bill of powers, the great residuum being the rights of the people; and, therefore, a bill of rights cannot be so necessary as if the residuum was thrown into the hands of the Government. I admit that these arguments are not entirely without foundation, but they are not as conclusive to the extent it has been proposed. It is true the powers of the general government are circumscribed; they are directed to particular objects; but even if government keeps within those limits, it has certain discretionary powers with respect to the means, which may admit of abuse.
This and other writings of Hamilton and Madison show that the powers of govt be severely restricted. The Ninth amendment basically in a modern sense says: 'just because we didn't enumerate a right, and just because we didn't enumerate a specific power, ultimately that which is not specified by the constitution remains in the hands of the people(great residuum).
And once again, the 2nd amendment tells those fed guv crats that follow as a warning; 'extend and advance powers of the govt too far, and the people will have the POWER, and authority to stop you. Either with the ballot, and failing that - with the rifle'.
Post by: acrogimp on October 07, 2017, 11:17:58 AM
Right. The Articles of Confederation were wholly inadequate. In fact, many of the Framers were gravely concerned with The Continental Congress' ability at the time to handle the responsibilities of the nation - collecting taxes, paying debts, regulating commerce, etc. Many of them argued for a federal government that would today be considered to have far too much authority.You need to read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers in whole and then come back to discuss 'the framers' - they were nowhere near universal of belief with respect to the structure and limitations of the Federal government however they all essentially agreed on the concept of natural rights and of the Constitution as a set of limitations on the power of a federal government, the Bill of Rights (the first ten anyway) was added to further clarify and limit government, basically subjects that were too hot to handle during the lead up to ratification.
The national government should be armed with positive and compleat authority in all cases which require uniformity
-James Madison
What Powers should be granted to the Government so constituted is a Question which deserves much Thought--I think the more the better--the States retaining only so much as may be necessary for domestic Purposes; and all their principal Officers civil and military being commissioned and removeable by the national Governmt
-John Jay
Madison even suggested that Congress have approval power over any state law. So it seems, perhaps, that the Framers didn't agree with Grover Norquist's bathtub opinion. The Constitution was not designed as a way to limit government. On the contrary, it was designed to expand the central government's powers significantly beyond what was recognized at the time. Now I'd never suggest the Framers sought an imperial government. But neither does history support the opposing extreme view; that the "purpose" of the Constitution was to severely limit federal power. The greatest protections against federal overreach were offered not by the literal restrictions of the Constitution, but by the incredible structure of our governing system - a bicameral congress, independent executive, veto power, etc.
As you know, the Bill of Rights came a couple of years after Ratification, and it is a statement of limitations on governmental power, written at the behest of several states to protect individual liberties. And this is why I find dubious your contention about the wording of the Second Amendment and your subsequent suggestion that it deserves special treatment over the others. It's the First Amendment that is most strongly-worded with respect to the intent of the Bill of Rights, by LITERALLY forbidding Congress from making laws with respect to abridgment of the rights stated therein. No other amendment makes that literal statement.
And yet, the Supreme Court has regularly affirmed that the individual rights protected by the Constitution are not absolute. Which happens, by the way, to mirror the opinions of at least some of the Framers.
If you cannot see or agree that the 2nd Amendment is in fact the ONLY guarantor of the entirety of the Bill of Rights and the sole means of protection for the rights of the smallest minority (the individual), then further discussion is unnecessary.
'Gimp
Post by: Number7 on October 07, 2017, 11:40:16 AM
The modern liberal has ZERO connection to real liberalism. It couldn’t be farther from liberalism unless the far left embraced islam - oh, wait - because the modern liberal wants all choice in the hands of the state. I disagree with this Kum-by-yah nonsense because it’s essentially nothing but a make believe attempt to pretend that there is no gulf that separates the totalitarian left from the rest of us.
The Democratic Party has fallen head over heels in love with communism and makes no bones about it. That so many centrists, or people pretending to be centrist, also pretend that this isn’t so is just because they feel a need to be polite to the point of becoming delusional in the obsession with not naming a communist a communist.
The Secnd Amendment argument is a perfect example of centrist theory ignoring reality to remain polite, or comfortable for the communists who wouldn’t hesitate to lock them in concentration camps
. All the hollering about conservatives wanting to lock up liberals is pure projection in its most mentally disturbed form.
Pretending that being polite will result in better behaved communists is like pretending that speaking softly to a rattlesnake will convince it not to bite.
Post by: asechrest on October 07, 2017, 01:03:30 PM
You need to read the Federalist Papers and the Anti-Federalist Papers in whole and then come back to discuss 'the framers' - they were nowhere near universal of belief with respect to the structure and limitations of the Federal government however they all essentially agreed on the concept of natural rights and of the Constitution as a set of limitations on the power of a federal government, the Bill of Rights (the first ten anyway) was added to further clarify and limit government, basically subjects that were too hot to handle during the lead up to ratification.
If you cannot see or agree that the 2nd Amendment is in fact the ONLY guarantor of the entirety of the Bill of Rights and the sole means of protection for the rights of the smallest minority (the individual), then further discussion is unnecessary.
'Gimp
A bit full of ourselves aren't we? No matter my beliefs on the second amendment, if you proclaim that discussion is unnecessary, you're welcome to bow out like a liberal snowflake. ;)
I'll have a substantive reply when I'm not on mobile.
Post by: invflatspin on October 07, 2017, 04:17:10 PM
In defense of the NRA and their rigid position on right to keep and bear arms.
The NRA recently joined with some liberal organizations to support a ban on the 'bump stock' accessory. A stand on which I am vehemently against. We all know the operative statement in the 2nd Amendment; 'shall not be infringed' and how the interpretation of that statement has stood the test of time and liberals trying to diminish, and restrict that natural right over the years.
Allow me now to introduce the 1968 supreme court decision in Terry v Ohio. The end of the Warran court had seen the Republicans lose power as the Democrats took over in 1965-6. There was an air of 'civil rights' flowing at the time, and the court was ready to move into the debate with it's cert of the Terry v Ohio case. Without going into details, the police viewed a man as 'suspicious' behavior, and on that basis and no other the police stopped, searched, and seized pistols from Terry and another man they considered an accomplice to a crime. However, there was no crime in progress when Terry was searched. He was convicted of carrying a weapon concealed, and he appealed. The state of OH court did review his case and found for the state(shocking, right?), so he appealed to the SCOTUS.
The court took the case, so that they may investigate the limits and authorities of the 4th amendment protection against "unreasonable" search and seizure. The central questions were - 1. Was Terry entitled to complete privacy and freedom of movement and freedom from search? - 2. Once determined that a seizure(of person, so that you cannot walk or run away) is lawful, is a search reasonable?
The answer comes from a careful wording of the investigative nature of policing. Here is the wording from the court: "In justifying the particular intrusion the police officer must be able to point to specific and articulable facts which, taken together with rational inferences from those facts, reasonably warrant the intrusion." I will highlight the two operant piece of the puzzle here: Specific and articulable facts (this will become very important later) must be present, and if those specific and articulable facts were presented to a court for a warrant, that in the totality of the facts, a court would have typically issued an invasive warrant to search the person(Terry).
I consider this a rather torturous and deprecating reasoning. First and obvious, the cop on the beat has only a rudimentary understanding of the rights provided under the constitution as it applies to citizens in comparison to even the greenest, and most junior of judges, who at the very least have studied sufficient law to pass a state bar exam, and are members in good standing of the bar, as well as servants of the constitution. The cop on the beat MAY be a 30 year veteran of the streets, but he may also be a '90 day wonder', fresh out of cop training and who has just been imbued by the SCOTUS with the power to make major civil rights decisions as an ad-hoc 'judge, jury and executioner'[sic]
Second, the cop on the beat is incentivized, and biased toward finding of enforcement arrests, and will in all cases except maybe Andy of Mayberry, be seen and judged by his contemporaries and peers on his number of arrests, and keeping the peace, rather than protection of the rights of citizens.
Now we have a 'reasonable' search in the eyes of the cop, and not the court. At this point, what can be searched, and how invasive can the search be conducted? Warren specifically found comfort in the wording of the state of OH ruling and came up with this: "The sole justification of the search ... is the protection of the police officer and others nearby, and it must therefore be confined in scope to an intrusion reasonably designed to discover guns, knives, clubs, or other hidden instruments for the assault of the police officer." It must be made clear, the search is for the protection of the officer, and the public around him/her, and is NOT an authority to search for evidentiary purposes, and as will be important later, for contraband, or other papers or personal effects.
Fast Forward to all the cases spawned by the Terry v OH. Further advancing the lawfullness of warrantless searches. Most all of which move the line ever away from individual liberty and privacy, and toward a controlled and monitored society where any cop, at any time, anywhere, for any reason gets to point to a/the citizen(s) and state; "He/she/they are acting suspiciously, and I can articulate that to a specific position such that I will now stop and frisk them under the authority of the Terry v OH(and subsequent) cases."
Bam - we have slipped the slope of the 4th amendment, due to the carelessness of the SCOTUS in violating the standards on which the privacy amendment stands. In essence, 'reasonable' means whatever the cop on the beat says it means, and judicial review be damned. For the student of judicial expansion see the following cases: Michigan v long and Hiibel v 6th district court of NV. In a final massive contraction of the 4th amendment protection, we look no further than Heien v NC - which held that, notwithstanding that a stop by LEO has no basis in law, such that they had no reason at all to pull a car over, or stop someone on the street that they mistakenly believed were committing a crime, the search and seizure under Terry stop any evidence CAN be used in a court.
That's correct. If a cop thinks that you've committed a crime, even when they are wrong, and fruit from the mistaken tree is found, that mistake by the LEO and subsequent stop, search, and seizure - the fruit from that mistake is evidentiary valid. Finally, the 4th amendment as it pertains to the citizen in public exists no longer. Any cop, at any time, in any setting can conveniently argue that they 'thought' you were breaking the law, perform the search, and the evidence obtained can and will be used against you. Note that in the case of Heien v NC, the evidence found during the Terry stop had nothing to do with the safety of the officer, or nearby public, but was in fact - cocaine. Unless the cop snorted massive amounts of it, there was never any danger to the LEO or gen public, which was the limitation of the Warren statement back in 68 - which has long since been swept away.
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
FF to April 2017. Terry was adjudicated about 50 years ago, and the slippery slope has taken hold, such that we are now hurtling along at breakneck speed to a Nazi Germany circa 1936. Of course, one of the literal cases after Terry now REQUIRES the citizen to identify themselves, just as it were in Berlin, 1932 - "halten zie. Ve vill haf your paperen bitte".
Go here, and read this: https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/morning-mix/wp/2017/10/06/georgia-sheriff-deputies-indicted-after-body-searches-of-900-high-school-students/
Finally, maybe, potentially we have reached a case where the Terry stop has expanded to such an extent that the police are now facing the bar of justice. But - really? Are they? To review, there were 40 LEO present and active in restricting the movement of people(the school was on 'lock-down', no in and no out). They were held incommunicado by theft of personal property(all phones). And many were minors, who the court has particularly held in the past to protect with greater care than the adult public. Two arrests, one facing misdemeanor charges? It's quite possible that none of them will serve a day in jail. Whereas if you or I, or any other member of the public had performed this, we would be facing decades in prison, and the prosecution would almost surely gain a conviction in the eyes of any competent jury.
1st amendment? 4th, 5th, 6th? Nonsense, the only thing at some point the 'crats will understand is a few hundred well armed PARENTS, storming the school, where their kids are held hostage. Where were the school authorities, in whose charge the kids was held? Why aren't they being prosecuted for failure to protect the minors? If they are still employed by the district, what message does that send to other schools? Hands off? Why do you think the cops took everyone's communication device away?
I await our prog to step up with the reasoning why we should expand the power of the state, and withdraw to even greater extent the inalienable rights of the public. Now you know why I NEED a bump-stock. If I had to rely on single shot, I might not get them all.