Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
201

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

But that still does not change original intent.[/quote]

Didn’t see this till now. The “original intent” of the Second Amendment did not restrict states from regulating gun ownership and carrying, which they did. The “original intent” of the Second Amendment was not to override the states’ prerogative in reglating arms as they saw fit, so, no, the Second Amendment does not and never has meant to insure the right of every American citizen to own whatever arm they wanted, not from the standpoint of “original intent”.

Explained a different way - if directly after the Second Amendment went into effect, a state enacted a law outlawing ownership of all firearms, the Second Amendment of the federal Constitution [u]did not prohibit this law as unconstituional[/u]. Period. As a matter of “original intent” of the Second Amendment.

[/quote]

Incorrect. See my previous post.

If you happen to be correct we have to go to the 14th and stretch and strain it, and disregard its original intent like many have done, to “incorporate”, right?[/quote]

Actually, the fathers considered the bill of rights so innate to just being a human, many didn’t think they needed to be written down. It is absolutely without question that those protections, as the founders intended, applied to people regardless of who was making a law.

202

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I think this is certainly debatable.[/quote]

Here is your problem - it isn’t debatable. No matter how much you would like for it to be, the Bill of Rights only applied to the federal government (unless the text expressly said otherwise and until the 14th Amendment). When the Constitution imposed obligations on the states, it expressly said so (see Article I, Section 9 for an example).

To say something is “debatable”, it actually has to be “debatable” - in this case, it ain’t, and simply saying it is doesn’t make it so.

[quote]It can be argued that in the Bill of Rights where the verbiage is intended to restrict only the federal government the words, “Congress shall make no law,” or suchi is used. Check it out. Look at the the first several Rights.

The inference is that where those words are not used it is speaking to the states and the federal government.[/quote]

Here is your problem, again - this just isn’t true. It’s just not. There was no intention that the Bill of Rights be applied to the states (originally).

203

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Now, what if the grievance was so popular and severe that the militias themselves were the rebellion?[/quote]

You mean like mad enough to avoid the draft and refuse to participate in the federalized militia? Then they get in trouble and get arrested and court-martialed, and enough citziens wind up participating anyway in obeyance of the law - you know, just like they did in the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion, where there was draft evasion and protests. C’mon, read a history book.

If the “grievance was so popular” that the vast bulk of armed men refuse to fight on the side of the federal government, well, the effect would be no different with a standing army armed with “federal” weapons. Irrelevant.[/quote]

Not true. Federal arms in a federal armory are different than ones in households legally bought and owned by an individual. And, if there is no difference, you should not object to all arms being privately owned.[/quote]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding concerning 18th century small arms and modern 21st century weapon systems. You absolutely cannot equivocate the two.
[/quote]

Irrelevant to the point. New technology doesn’t change intent. Nor does it change what’s written.

Additionally, I’ve pointed out multiple times on this thread and gotten no response. The founding fathers intended warships and artillery to be privately owned. And a couple dozen 30 pound cannons are far more formidable than an MP5.
[/quote]

Is it absolutely relevant. Do you think Tom who lives over by the airport should be able to own a FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missile system? If you say yes, you are fucking delusional. [/quote]

You need to go re-read my posts. I never said any such thing. And it’s irrelevant because we are talking about what the constitution says. I assure you it doesn’t say, you can have arms except FIM-92 stinger systems because you could shoot down an airliner. I assure you, the founding fathers never included that in any way into the writing of the second amendment.[/quote]

According to you, the 2nd amendment should allow me to buy artillery and warships as a private citizen. After all, that’s what the Founders wanted right? Let me have my Stinger. I promise I won’t ever use it unless a “tyrannical government” starts oppressing me. You can trust me not to kill hundreds of people with a twitch of my finger.

204

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
I do not have the time to teach you English.

Militia capable of defending the individual from the tyranny of the state. It is right there. The second amendment is the right to rebellion. It is the right of self (individual) defense from state aggression. [/quote]

No matter how many times you flail around, the simple fact that the Second Amendment does not explicitly call for “a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government,” as you claimed it did, remains unchanged. That you have been debating the point with TB–no lightweight in these matters–is a function of the fact that this is a matter of your interpretation and not mere reading comprehension.

Again: the words aren’t there. You said they were there. That’s all.[/quote]

Look at the words of the men who drafted, signed and ratified the Constitution. Look at them. Dammit, I didn’t want to have go all Google on y’all and bury you in original intent verbiage but it looks like we’re headed that way.[/quote]

It should be noted that these posts directed at DD are part of a very specific argument that developed between the two of us and is based on a very particular claim he made and will now neither disavow nor substantiate. It’s a petty tit-for-tat, in other words.

Regarding the larger point, I tend to fall on TB’s side. My particular view is like this:

–The Second Amendment does not explicitly say whether restriction of particular types of weapons is unacceptable. If the First Amendment and Brandenburg v. Ohio are indeed compatible, then reasonable gun control measures are not as much of an affront to the Bill of Rights as some people suggest.

–If you insist on taking an absolutely purist, textual interpretation of the Second, the argument can be made that anyone, regardless of mental health status, is entitled to the natural liberty of firearm ownership.

–It is somewhat fatuous to try and figure out whether or not the founders would have been cool with John Doe in Bumblefuck, USA and his cache of C-4 plastic explosives. We don’t have a direct answer to the question of whether or not they would approve of unrestricted access to weaponry in this age of the .50 cal, the grenade launcher, and the unmanned flying robot of death. One thing that is absolutely clear, though, is that the Second Amendment does not in any way explicitly call for a militia that is equal in capability and firepower to the United States Armed Forces, as has been absurdly averred in this thread. Basic reading comprehension should make this last point as uncontroversial as any claim in the history of PWI.

206

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Incorrect. See my previous post.

If you happen to be correct we have to go to the 14th and stretch and strain it, and disregard its original intent like many have done, to “incorporate”, right?[/quote]

No, man, it isn’t incorrect. The Second Amendment didn’t apply to the states at the time of the ratification of the Constitution and Bill of Rights. It’s not up for debate - that is a historical and legal fact.

Look, this is an issue with you - just because you want something to be true as a matter of constitutional history, that doesn’t mean it is so.

As for the 14th Amendment, it incorporates the Second Amendment into coverage over the states. That is fine as far as it goes, but that is where the real mess starts - trying to weigh the “original intent” of the Second Amendment against the historical ability of states to regulate firearms as they saw fit is hard, and is made worse by the fact that the 14th Amendment was not passed to deal with this issue (gun rights), so there is no guidance as to how the 14th Amendment is “supposed” to deal with the Second Amendment - no one cared at the time, that wasn’t what the 14th Amendment was about.

This same problem occurs with the First Amendment, too.

Bottom line: the “original intent” of the Second Amendment was not to create a universal right to arms ownership of any kind you want. If it was, the Framers would have declared it so in the text and said it applied to the states. They didn’t, so the “original intent” of the Second Amendment intended to permit states to regulatye (or not) without interference. Why and how the 14th Amendment overcomes this “original intent” is the hard part.

207

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Now, what if the grievance was so popular and severe that the militias themselves were the rebellion?[/quote]

You mean like mad enough to avoid the draft and refuse to participate in the federalized militia? Then they get in trouble and get arrested and court-martialed, and enough citziens wind up participating anyway in obeyance of the law - you know, just like they did in the events surrounding the Whiskey Rebellion, where there was draft evasion and protests. C’mon, read a history book.

If the “grievance was so popular” that the vast bulk of armed men refuse to fight on the side of the federal government, well, the effect would be no different with a standing army armed with “federal” weapons. Irrelevant.[/quote]

Not true. Federal arms in a federal armory are different than ones in households legally bought and owned by an individual. And, if there is no difference, you should not object to all arms being privately owned.[/quote]

You seem to have a fundamental misunderstanding concerning 18th century small arms and modern 21st century weapon systems. You absolutely cannot equivocate the two.
[/quote]

Irrelevant to the point. New technology doesn’t change intent. Nor does it change what’s written.

Additionally, I’ve pointed out multiple times on this thread and gotten no response. The founding fathers intended warships and artillery to be privately owned. And a couple dozen 30 pound cannons are far more formidable than an MP5.
[/quote]

Is it absolutely relevant. Do you think Tom who lives over by the airport should be able to own a FIM-92 Stinger surface-to-air missile system? If you say yes, you are fucking delusional. [/quote]

You need to go re-read my posts. I never said any such thing. And it’s irrelevant because we are talking about what the constitution says. I assure you it doesn’t say, you can have arms except FIM-92 stinger systems because you could shoot down an airliner. I assure you, the founding fathers never included that in any way into the writing of the second amendment.[/quote]

According to you, the 2nd amendment should allow me to buy artillery and warships as a private citizen. After all, that’s what the Founders wanted right? Let me have my Stinger. I promise I won’t ever use it unless a “tyrannical government” starts oppressing me. You can trust me not to kill hundreds of people with a twitch of my finger.[/quote]

Wrong. I’ve only written about what the fathers intended. I haven’t said what my stance was. There are 3 different logically consistent stances I could take:

  1. That the constitution needs revision.

  2. People should be free to get anything the government can.

  3. The government shouldn’t have weapons that the people can’t.

(kind of 4 which could be a combination)

I just have a huge problem with people simply twisting it to suit whatever view they have. If your interpretation of the practicality of privately owned missile systems alters your interpretation of what is written in an amendment, you are full of shit.

210

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

A militia that can resist government tyranny. How does that work without comparable arms?

There were no missiles when it was written. The fact that you (and others) continuously refer to logistical concerns isolated to modern weaponry that, because of the nature of time, could not possibly have effected the writing of the second amendment proves my point.

Even your siting of the whiskey rebellion is laughable. The federal government behaved exactly in the confines of what I have laid out, and exactly the opposite of your modern revisionist interpretation. The fed had no weapons and relied on average folks with their own arms to act on it’s behalf.

But again, I’ve posed numerous questions to you and others and gotten no answers. Chiefly, what does the second amendment say? An armed militia comprised of regular citizens are necessary to keep a state free from tyranny. I’m asking you, how does that work?

I also asked why, if there is no difference between citizen ownership and federal ownership of arms, one way is ludicrous and one is sensible.[/quote]

Duce, I like you, but seriously - we’ve reached a point where it’s getting impossible. Like I told Push, the history is the history. You can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and you can’t pretend an alternate history occurred in its place.

Look, the Second Amendment left in place state regulation of arms - it didn’t create a universal right to ownership. Period, because the Second Amendment didn’t apply to the states. If you want to rely on “original intent”, you don’t get to skip over this inconvenient aspect of it.

And, no, my citing of the Whiskey Rebellion isn’t laughable - if there is one things we’ve learned, it’s that libertarians relying on “history” frankly don’t know much about it. If what you say is true about the Constitution wanting armed citizens to “rival” the federal government, there’d be no authorization of force in a Rebellion Clause. Period.

Seriously, I am trying to be patient, but your understanding and Push’s understanding of the basic history here is, charitably, bad.

211

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually, the fathers considered the bill of rights so innate to just being a human, many didn’t think they needed to be written down. It is absolutely without question that those protections, as the founders intended, applied to people regardless of who was making a law.[/quote]

I can’t believe I am reading this.

212

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Take away the weapons James Holmes used and the James Holmes’s of this world will use a machete
[/quote]

I’d rather go up against a tweaking, skinny lunatic with a machete than one with an M&P15 any day. And I bet a bunch of those people rotting in the Colorado dirt would concur if they could be asked, regardless of their politics on July 19, 2012.

I think there’s common ground between you and I though: you mentioned something about all firearms being legal but keeping them out of the hands of the certifiably insane. I’d be in favor of fairly weak gun control legislation if we were to take the notion of the background check and the privilege to ownership very seriously.

213

[quote]pushharder wrote:

You’re confusing your rebellions. We can talk local ones. We can talk regional ones. We can talk national ones. For instance, if the War Between the States had pitted the Confederacy along with Iowa, Minnesota, Michigan, Illinois, Maine, Vermont, Kentucky, Pennsylvania and Ohio against the remaining Northern states we would’ve had a national rebellion and not a regional one and thus we would have dealing with an entirely different set of cards in 1861.[/quote]

Irrelevant. Who cares? The only question for purposes here is what is legitimate under the Constitution and what is not?

Ultimately, of course. But they’re not when one happens and teh decision has to be made as to whether it is legit or not - they’ve vested the power to make the determination in the federal government by authorizing that power under the Constitution.

Irrelevant. If enough people decide the time has come to burn withces at the stake, it will happen - that doesn’t help us figure out if what they decided was right.

214

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Actually, the fathers considered the bill of rights so innate to just being a human, many didn’t think they needed to be written down. It is absolutely without question that those protections, as the founders intended, applied to people regardless of who was making a law.[/quote]

I can’t believe I am reading this.[/quote]

They considered them human rights. No, the constitution doesn’t specify they apply state law, but the founders considered themselves to be enumerating innate human rights when they were passed.

215

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I just have a huge problem with people simply twisting it to suit whatever view they have. [/quote]

See the post I directed at you on the previous page. The one where I juxtapose two quotations from you. If there isn’t twisting going on there, Kate Middleton is pregnant with my child.

216

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

A militia that can resist government tyranny. How does that work without comparable arms?

There were no missiles when it was written. The fact that you (and others) continuously refer to logistical concerns isolated to modern weaponry that, because of the nature of time, could not possibly have effected the writing of the second amendment proves my point.

Even your siting of the whiskey rebellion is laughable. The federal government behaved exactly in the confines of what I have laid out, and exactly the opposite of your modern revisionist interpretation. The fed had no weapons and relied on average folks with their own arms to act on it’s behalf.

But again, I’ve posed numerous questions to you and others and gotten no answers. Chiefly, what does the second amendment say? An armed militia comprised of regular citizens are necessary to keep a state free from tyranny. I’m asking you, how does that work?

I also asked why, if there is no difference between citizen ownership and federal ownership of arms, one way is ludicrous and one is sensible.[/quote]

Duce, I like you, but seriously - we’ve reached a point where it’s getting impossible. Like I told Push, the history is the history. You can’t pretend it doesn’t exist, and you can’t pretend an alternate history occurred in its place.

Look, the Second Amendment left in place state regulation of arms - it didn’t create a universal right to ownership. Period, because the Second Amendment didn’t apply to the states. If you want to rely on “original intent”, you don’t get to skip over this inconvenient aspect of it.

And, no, my citing of the Whiskey Rebellion isn’t laughable - if there is one things we’ve learned, it’s that libertarians relying on “history” frankly don’t know much about it. If what you say is true about the Constitution wanting armed citizens to “rival” the federal government, there’d be no authorization of force in a Rebellion Clause. Period.

Seriously, I am trying to be patient, but your understanding and Push’s understanding of the basic history here is, charitably, bad.[/quote]

You’ve yet to site any history that supports your side though. Instead of insulting me and making no counter arguments, why not school me? I actually do listen and am willing to learn, but you’re giving me nothing to even consider while ignoring anything I point out.

217

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

I just have a huge problem with people simply twisting it to suit whatever view they have. [/quote]

See the post I directed at you on the previous page. The one where I juxtapose two quotations from you. If there isn’t twisting going on there, Kate Middleton is pregnant with my child.[/quote]

I have responded to this. I have begged for opposing information. I have asked repeatedly for alternate interpretation, and I’ve gotten nothing from anyone. I have even offered to lay my understanding aside and be corrected. You’ve refused all this. put up or shut up. Adults are talking.

220

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

You’ve yet to site any history that supports your side though. Instead of insulting me and making no counter arguments, why not school me? I actually do listen and am willing to learn, but you’re giving me nothing to even consider while ignoring anything I point out.[/quote]

Already have. Re-read my posts to you and Push.

Perfect example? You keep saying the Founders saw arms ownership as a “natural right” regardless. Well, no they didn’t - how do we know that? Because they didn’t do anything about circumscribing the states’ powers to have their own gun regulations, which they did at the time. Prior to enactment of the Bill of Rights, states had a variety of gun regulations. The Founders left all of these gun regulations in tact, despite the fact that they were enacting a federal bill of rights that could have erased all of them if they thought the right to gun ownership was absolute.

They didn’t. That’s the history. You can’t change it, and Push can’t change it. So, no, the “original intent” of the Second Amendment was not to create a universal right.

EDIT: fixed typo.