Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
241

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Yes and no. In context of today’s parties, they were all radical right wingers. While there are differences in what they believed, the left wing founders were arguing for the ability to tax other than just tariffs. You cannot say they were homogenous, you can say they were all to certain sides of a current ideology. I mean only the latter.

242

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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

Non-answer. Answer the question. States clearly believed they could infringe upon the absolute right to gun ownership in the name of public morals, safety, etc. We know this practice didn’t violate the Constitution (then) - were all these gun laws impermissible under “natural law”?

Because, if so, someone forgot to tell the states that.

I look forward to your answer.

244

Interesting article, as it is pertinent to the conversation.

California gun sales soar (even while we have some of the strictest gun laws in the land.)

I never knew we had so many hillbillies in this state, it must have been them who voted to legalize public nudity.

246

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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

Non-answer. Answer the question. States clearly believed they could infringe upon the absolute right to gun ownership in the name of public morals, safety, etc. We know this practice didn’t violate the Constitution (then) - were all these gun laws impermissible under “natural law”?

Because, if so, someone forgot to tell the states that.

I look forward to your answer.[/quote]

Sorry, allow me to be more direct. Actions do not always follow ideology. I am a Christian, but many times I allow myself to betray my ideology. That doesn’t change what I believe and it definitely doesn’t change what is written. You cannot honestly read the DOI, and take that ideology to be the sanctioning of slaves because it existed in the face of slavery.

Read the text. Try to apply it without states being bound by it. It doesn’t work. Again I’ve asked for explanation or a different reading of what they actually wrote and gotten nothing.

247

[quote]pushharder wrote:

The First Amendment starts with “Congress shall make no law…” for a reason. The others don’t mention Congress for a reason.[/quote]

False. You made that up. The exclusion of the mention of Congress is not and has never been a reason to certify that the Bill of Rights applied to the states. The Constitution was a grant of power and catalog of limitations on the federal government. Where the Constitution impacted state laws, it expressly said so - see, for example, Article I, Section 10, where the Constitution expressly provides:

No State shall enter into any Treaty, Alliance, or Confederation; grant Letters of Marque and Reprisal; coin Money; emit Bills of Credit; make any Thing but gold and silver Coin a Tender in Payment of Debts; pass any Bill of Attainder, ex post facto Law, or Law impairing the Obligation of Contracts, or grant any Title of Nobility.

248

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Yes and no. In context of today’s parties, they were all radical right wingers. While there are differences in what they believed, the left wing founders were arguing for the ability to tax other than just tariffs. You cannot say they were homogenous, you can say they were all to certain sides of a current ideology. I mean only the latter.[/quote]

Still didn’t address Republican vs Liberal Liberty. Mulligan?

251

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Yes and no. In context of today’s parties, they were all radical right wingers. While there are differences in what they believed, the left wing founders were arguing for the ability to tax other than just tariffs. You cannot say they were homogenous, you can say they were all to certain sides of a current ideology. I mean only the latter.[/quote]

Still didn’t address Republican vs Liberal Liberty. Mulligan? [/quote]

I have to because you told me to? I addressed and explained what I meant referring to the founders. I’m not going to sit or bark on command either.

252

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Find this book at your library and read it. I realize it’s too expensive for most to buy.

http://www.amazon.com/Unintended-Consequences-John-Ross/dp/1888118040[/quote]

Also avaliable for free here…

http://www.scribd.com/doc/11793519/Unintended-Consequences

254

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Legionary wrote:

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.[/quote]

FTR, when I say “founders” I mainly intend the preponderance of founders.

You are quite correct in your initial phrase. The Federalists and anti-Federalists were viciously opposed in many instances.[/quote]

No worries I was addressing DD.

255

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Other than telling me I used different words, you’ve done not a single thing to change that. [/quote]

I’m not sure if this is meant to say that I’ve been misquoting you, but I haven’t. I’ve been using your exact words.

Either way, let me just say that I think you’re a good poster and worthy adversary and harbor no ill will toward you. Arguments between you and I can tend to become tense (a function, I think, of the fact that we have similar debating styles and divergent views), but I don’t mean any disrespect, even if I come across as though I do in the moment.

256

[quote]pushharder wrote:

This doesn’t make your case.[/quote]

I didn’t say it “made my case”, but since the Framers were precise enough to include the “no State shall…into a Treaty” as part of a specific prohibition on state action, then the Framers would have been equally precise in the Bill of Rights had they wanted it to apply to states, as in “no State shall…infringe on tehe right to keep and bear arms”.

These weren’t slapdash words - the Framers were specific and careful. If they wanted to have the Bill of Rights apply to the states, they would have said so, just like they did in Article 1, Section 10.

You’re on the wrong side of this sixteen different ways - case law (in 1833 the Supreme Court held that the BOR didn’t apply to states), express language, constitutional context, absence of any intent for the BOR to apply to the states in treatises or writings (i.e., Federalist Papers), and common sense.

You really want to keep digging?

257

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]smh23 wrote:
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.[/quote]

Then start with basic premise of freedom and its constitutional protections and work in the direction we need to go and not the other way around where we decide what weapons are simply “too much” and work our way backwards until the basic premise of freedom is whatever we decide it shall be at the time.[/quote]

Are you implying that there are no weapons that are simply “too much?” Does this include explosive material and heavy ordnance?