Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
222

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Excuse me, this is not a matter of “alternate interpretation.”

[quote]

DoubleDuce wrote:
I was not quoting the text with what I wrote nor did I claim to.

DoubleDuce wrote:
The guys who wrote it specifically and explicitly wrote the second amendment to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text. [/quote]

We are not in the realm of opinion here. There is no feat of interpretive acrobatics that can reconcile the two claims I’ve reproduced. Or maybe if I were an adult, I’d get it?

Again, you came at me with a grandstanding claim on authority in these matters, and you followed it with the drivel I’ve quoted above.

Personal interpretation, if you’re looking for it, can be found in my last response to Push. The First Amendment/Brandenburg argument and the like.

223

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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 change it. So, no, the “original intent” of the Second Amendment was not to create a universal right.[/quote]

Incorrect. Many issues that would have prevented ratification were avoided, like slavery. Certain states and their representatives refused to ratify the constitution without the bill of rights, because they were afraid it was going to be used as leverage to do things like take away arms. So, they had that protection added.

But again, the purposefully avoiding even addressing some topics.

The amendment itself says that it’s protection is necessary to a free state and it isn’t logical or coherent that they thought militias were necessary to keep one state free, but not another (nor does it state any such thing). If they believed and wrote as you are claiming, the wording doesn’t make any sense.

225

[quote]smh23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Excuse me, this is not a matter of “alternate interpretation.”

[quote]

DoubleDuce wrote:
I was not quoting the text with what I wrote nor did I claim to.

DoubleDuce wrote:
The guys who wrote it specifically and explicitly wrote the second amendment to enable a citizen military that could rival the power of the federal government. It states it right there in the text. [/quote]

We are not in the realm of opinion here. There is no feat of interpretive acrobatics that can reconcile the two claims I’ve reproduced. Or maybe if I were an adult, I’d get it?

Again, you came at me with a grandstanding claim on authority in these matters, and you followed it with the drivel I’ve quoted above.

Personal interpretation, if you’re looking for it, can be found in my last response to Push. The First Amendment/Brandenburg argument and the like.[/quote]

No, what you wrote to push is the way you want things to be. I asked what the second amendment says.

I see only one reasonable way to read the text. And I’ve stated it and stand by it. Other than telling me I used different words, you’ve done not a single thing to change that.

226

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Then state governments had every right in the world to quarter state soldiers in private homes against the homeowner’s wishes? Right?

Then the right to a jury trial, speedy trial and right to counsel only applied in federal trials. Right?

Due process was only guaranteed in federal courts. Right?

Double jeopardy, self incrimination and eminent domain only applied in federal courts. Right?

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures only applied when it came to federal officers. Right?

The right of the accused to confront his accuser in state or local court did not apply until the 14th Amendment was ratified in 1868. Really?

Excessive bail could only be prohibited in federal courts until 1868. Really now?[/quote]

Heh. Uh, yeah, that’s right, Push, under the federal Constitution. Wait, wait - you mean you actually believe that the Bill of Rights applied to the states prior to the 14th Amendment?

No, really?

Really?

Setting aside the enormous mistake you’re making while blindly trying to pretend you are right on this, the great irony is that the inapplicablity of the Bill of Rights to states was seen as very much a federalist deference to not wade into the right to states to do things their way - if the Constitutional text didn’t provide for interference with state autonomy, no applicability.

And, moreover, your examples are riddled with mistaken arguments as well - for example, you say Due process was only guaranteed in federal courts. Right? Well, no, state courts had Due Process, but they had Due Process because…wait for it…the state constitutions provided for it. But no, there was no federal right to Due Process in a state court under the original Bill of Rights.

[quote]T-bolt, you done stepped in a massive cow pie. You’re gonna stink for awhile my good friend.

I suggest zipping over to your local car wash and git yorself cleaned up 'fore you can come out and play again.[/quote]

This is (unintentionally) hilarious. You really want to try to talk trash when it has become clear you don’t know anything about the historical application of the Bill of Rights, the incorporation doctrine, and the 14th Amendment?

C’mon, Push. All of us reading get it. You’re not up to speed on this. Instead of folksy smarm, better just admit you’ve got some reading to do.

227

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Again you are wrong. Dead wrong.

You boxed yourself into a corner.

You just essentially said the 3rd, 4th, 5th, 6th, 7th, 8th and the 2nd Amendment did not protect The People until 1868 except in the federal arena. Now THAT my friend is the height of absurdity.

In fact that is beyond absurd.[/quote]

Keep talking. You’re just making it worse. See my most recent post to you.

Recommendation: stop digging.

230

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Incorrect. Many issues that would have prevented ratification were avoided, like slavery. Certain states and their representatives refused to ratify the constitution without the bill of rights, because they were afraid it was going to be used as leverage to do things like take away arms. So, they had that protection added.[/quote]

Good Lord. Then if the states wanted the “protection” of the absolute right of their private citizens’ to own arms in the Second Amendment, why did these exact same states maintain state laws and regulations restricting absolute ownership and carrying arms after the Second Amendment was enacted???

231

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Incorrect. Many issues that would have prevented ratification were avoided, like slavery. Certain states and their representatives refused to ratify the constitution without the bill of rights, because they were afraid it was going to be used as leverage to do things like take away arms. So, they had that protection added.[/quote]

Good Lord. Then if the states wanted the “protection” of the absolute right of their private citizens’ to own arms in the Second Amendment, why did these exact same states maintain state laws and regulations restricting absolute ownership and carrying arms after the Second Amendment was enacted???[/quote]

What were the laws? (seriously interested)

235

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What were the laws? (seriously interested)[/quote]

Off the top of my head, there were laws requiring centralized storage, and restricting the possession of guns by blacks and Indians. In some places, the restricted possession of people thought to be “disloyal,” and in Maryland (I think), they actually restricted ownership by Catholics (part of the suspicion of disloyalty stuff).

States have historically enjoy latitude in regulating arms. It’s a historical fact, no one can change it. As such, the “original intent” of the Second Amendment isn’t the safe harbor libertarians want it to be - the Second Amendment “permitted” states to regulate arms in deference to states’ own prerogatives.

It doesn’t mean there is no constitutional right to a gun - it’s just that the history is complicated, and you can’t jsut say “hey, the Founders wanted everybody to have whatever arm they wanted!” - because that isn’t true.

236

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What were the laws? (seriously interested)[/quote]

Off the top of my head, there were laws requiring centralized storage, and restricting the possession of guns by blacks and Indians. In some places, the restricted possession of people thought to be “disloyal,” and in Maryland (I think), they actually restricted ownership by Catholics (part of the suspicion of disloyalty stuff).

States have historically enjoy latitude in regulating arms. It’s a historical fact, no one can change it. As such, the “original intent” of the Second Amendment isn’t the safe harbor libertarians want it to be - the Second Amendment “permitted” states to regulate arms in deference to states’ own prerogatives.

It doesn’t mean there is no constitutional right to a gun - it’s just that the history is complicated, and you can’t jsut say “hey, the Founders wanted everybody to have whatever arm they wanted!” - because that isn’t true.[/quote]

So, a state has authority to ban Muslims from owning guns, as long as the state constitution doesn’t prohibit it?

I still see it as an issue they didn’t have political clout to address. And again, I never stated that the constitution holds it applies to the states. BUT, it was considered a natural right by those who wrote it and it was not an ideology that could only applies to the federal government (as the text states).

Things they left to states does not mean they were sanctioned by the constitution. And you cannot live to the ideology stated in the second amendment unless it applies to the individual states.

237

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, a state has authority to ban Muslims from owning guns, as long as the state constitution doesn’t prohibit it?[/quote]

Well, probably not, because that would be an Equal Protection problem. That is different from a Second Amendment issue.

[quote]BUT, it was considered a natural right by those who wrote it and it was not an ideology that could only applies to the federal government (as the text states).

Things they left to states does not mean they were sanctioned by the constitution. And you cannot live to the ideology stated in the second amendment unless it applies to the individual states.[/quote]

Well, we are back to square one - if what you say is true, why then did states (then) infringe upon this absolute “natural” right of arms ownership regardless of its inclusion in the federal Second Amendment?

238

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

What were the laws? (seriously interested)[/quote]

Off the top of my head, there were laws requiring centralized storage, and restricting the possession of guns by blacks and Indians. In some places, the restricted possession of people thought to be “disloyal,” and in Maryland (I think), they actually restricted ownership by Catholics (part of the suspicion of disloyalty stuff).

States have historically enjoy latitude in regulating arms. It’s a historical fact, no one can change it. As such, the “original intent” of the Second Amendment isn’t the safe harbor libertarians want it to be - the Second Amendment “permitted” states to regulate arms in deference to states’ own prerogatives.

It doesn’t mean there is no constitutional right to a gun - it’s just that the history is complicated, and you can’t jsut say “hey, the Founders wanted everybody to have whatever arm they wanted!” - because that isn’t true.[/quote]

So, a state has authority to ban Muslims from owning guns, as long as the state constitution doesn’t prohibit it?

I still see it as an issue they didn’t have political clout to address. And again, I never stated that the constitution holds it applies to the states. BUT, it was considered a natural right by those who wrote it and it was not an ideology that could only applies to the federal government (as the text states).

Things they left to states does not mean they were sanctioned by the constitution. And you cannot live to the ideology stated in the second amendment unless it applies to the individual states.
[/quote]

There was not a uniform consensus among the Founders, yet you keep saying “fathers this…founders that.” I would advise becoming acquainted with the concepts of Republican Liberty and Liberal Liberty and the differences between them.

239

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

So, a state has authority to ban Muslims from owning guns, as long as the state constitution doesn’t prohibit it?[/quote]

Well, probably not, because that would be an Equal Protection problem. That is different from a Second Amendment issue.

[quote]BUT, it was considered a natural right by those who wrote it and it was not an ideology that could only applies to the federal government (as the text states).

Things they left to states does not mean they were sanctioned by the constitution. And you cannot live to the ideology stated in the second amendment unless it applies to the individual states.[/quote]

Well, we are back to square one - if what you say is true, why then did states (then) infringe upon this absolute “natural” right of arms ownership regardless of its inclusion in the federal Second Amendment?[/quote]

The DOI also says all men have inalienable rights, but was written by slave owners.