[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I don’t have a problem with handguns…
[/quote]
Sure you do. Some of 'em at least. You already told us that.
[/quote]
True, I stand corrected. I don’t have a problem with many handguns.
What about MANPADS? Avoiding the question is as detrimental to your argument as answering it.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
The Second Amendment, as written, is agnostic with respect to legal restrictions on certain weapons.[/quote]
While that doesn’t give you specifics for full auto vs. semi auto or some other debate, it’s a far cry from agnostic.[/quote]
“[It] doesn’t give you specifics for full auto vs. semi auto or some other debate.” Or, to paraphrase: the Second Amendment, as written, is agnostic with respect to legal restrictions on certain weapons.
Try it this way: in order to prove me incorrect, you will have to prove my claim’s opposite to be true:
The Second Amendment, as written, renders any legal restriction on any weapon explicitly unconstitutional.
Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Wrong. All I have to show is there the second amendment does anything to qualify what weapons it’s talking about. It does that. The opposite of agnostic is ANY amount of knowledge.
You just need to admit, you are against the 2nd amendment and for a new amendment guaranteeing arms for personal defense.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Try it this way: in order to prove me incorrect, you will have to prove my claim’s opposite to be true:
The Second Amendment, as written, renders any legal restriction on any weapon explicitly unconstitutional.
Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I’m no lawyer, nor do I claim to be particularly well versed in the interpretations of the Constitution, but I do know a thing or two about statistics, and what you just said roused the faintest stirrings of a memory about “proving” things and null hypotheses.
You can’t just say something and then claim that it’s true unless someone can specifically prove the opposite. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are suggesting that an inability to reject the null hypothesis necessitates that it be true. Failing to reject a null hypothesis is a weak outcome, and that’s the point. It’s no better than failing to reject the innumerable other models that you could make up.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
To stay with your insistent comparison with the speech part of the First, if I thought you should be legally prohibited from openly criticizing the government in some areas - let’s say letters to the newspaper editor - would you consider me to be pro-free speech?
[/quote]
No–you’ve arbitrarily added the element of criticizing the government. But if you thought that I should be legally prohibited from, generally, certain kinds of speech–a proposition whose analog is the legal prohibition of, generally, certain kinds of weapons–then yes, I believe that you could still be a proponent of free speech.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Wrong. All I have to show is there the second amendment does anything to qualify what weapons it’s talking about. It does that. The opposite of agnostic is ANY amount of knowledge.
You just need to admit, you are against the 2nd amendment and for a new amendment guaranteeing arms for personal defense.[/quote]
The Second Amendment explicitly allows certain legal restrictions on certain weapons.
The Second Amendment explicitly prohibits certain legal restrictions on certain weapons.
The text in question does not allow us to choose between these two propositions without interpretations/argumentation.
Hence: agnosticism.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Try it this way: in order to prove me incorrect, you will have to prove my claim’s opposite to be true:
The Second Amendment, as written, renders any legal restriction on any weapon explicitly unconstitutional.
Good luck with that.
[/quote]
Whoa, whoa, whoa. I’m no lawyer, nor do I claim to be particularly well versed in the interpretations of the Constitution, but I do know a thing or two about statistics, and what you just said roused the faintest stirrings of a memory about “proving” things and null hypotheses.
You can’t just say something and then claim that it’s true unless someone can specifically prove the opposite. Absence of evidence is not evidence of absence. You are suggesting that an inability to reject the null hypothesis necessitates that it be true. Failing to reject a null hypothesis is a weak outcome, and that’s the point. It’s no better than failing to reject the innumerable other models that you could make up.[/quote]
I contend that the Second Amendment does not prohibit restrictions on certain arms.
DD contends that I am incorrect.
Therefore, DD contends that the Second Amendment does in fact prohibit restrictions on certain arms.
I have asked him to prove this.
There is nothing unreasonable about this request.
[quote]csulli wrote:
You can’t just say something and then claim that it’s true unless someone can specifically prove the opposite.[/quote]
I claim something doesn’t exist (an explicit prohibition of any arms restriction in the Bill of Rights, the logical consequence of which being that the distribution and sale of no–and I mean no–weapon to an American citizen may be curtailed and that the Second Amendment makes this explicitly clear).
DD claims it does.
With whom does the burden of proof lie?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I claim something doesn’t exist (an explicit prohibition of any arms restriction in the Bill of Rights, the logical consequence of which being that the distribution and sale of no–and I mean no–weapon to an American citizen may be curtailed and that the Second Amendment makes this explicitly clear).
DD claims it does.
With whom does the burden of proof lie?[/quote]
Both of you.
[quote]csulli wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
I claim something doesn’t exist (an explicit prohibition of any arms restriction in the Bill of Rights, the logical consequence of which being that the distribution and sale of no–and I mean no–weapon to an American citizen may be curtailed and that the Second Amendment makes this explicitly clear).
DD claims it does.
With whom does the burden of proof lie?[/quote]
Both of you.[/quote]
And I’ve done my part. Or should I go to greater lengths to prove a clause doesn’t exist in an excerpt than reproducing the excerpt in question?
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
To stay with your insistent comparison with the speech part of the First, if I thought you should be legally prohibited from openly criticizing the government in some areas - let’s say letters to the newspaper editor - would you consider me to be pro-free speech?
[/quote]
No–you’ve arbitrarily added the element of criticizing the government. But if you thought that I should be legally prohibited from, generally, certain kinds of speech–a proposition whose analog is the legal prohibition of, generally, certain kinds of weapons–then yes, I believe that you could still be a proponent of free speech.[/quote]
Hogwash. All handguns of any type were legal in 1789 and in fact all handguns of any type were legal for ~85% of our history. You need a new Amendment if you want to make constitutional changes to the Second that relegate certain handguns to the Not-Intended-for-Private-Ownership category.
But you’re telling me all handguns of any type should not be legal now.
Political speech (criticizing the government) has been legal throughout our history, save the unconstitutional Alien and Sedition Acts, and you would be the first to advocate it stay that way. I’d need a new Amendment if I want to make constitutional changes to the First that relegate certain types of political speech to the Not-Intended-for-Private-Citizens-to-Be-Able-to-Speak-in-This-Manner category.
For instance, you would argue that modern technology has given us weapons that the Founders could not imagine - fully automatic rifles, shotguns and handguns, claymore mines, laser optics, etc. - and so therefore blah…blah…blah.
I could then argue that modern technology has given us new methods of speech that the Founders could not imagine - Twitter, email, banners flown from behind small airplanes, etc., - and so therefore blah…blah…blah.
You’ve got a problem, smh. You can blah…blah…blah…my sacred Amendment and others can turn around and do it to yours. THAT’S why you have to fight for the Second, my good sir, because when you fight for the Second you’re fighting for the rest of them too.
Go read the transcript or listen to the audio/video of the Scalia/Morgan interview. Doesn’t mention guns at all but will fill your young mind with all kinds of good material about how to ascertain the Constitution.[/quote]
This is, all in all, a good post. I am actually especially fond of the analogy you’ve made to 21st century forms of communication. It may well come to pass that a similar debate as the one we’re engaged in at the present will gain steam with regard to so-called cyber-bullying.
Your handguns point follows from the interpretation you provided above regarding weapons that a single militiaman could own and handle.
As I’ve noted, though, this interpretation would also seem to render unconstitutional any prohibition of shoulder-launched SAMs, for example. Which does seem to be a problem.
Anyway, I’m switching between some work I’ve been neglecting and this debate, but I am formulating a response to the interpretation you provided yesterday.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Go read the transcript or listen to the audio/video of the Scalia/Morgan interview. Doesn’t mention guns at all but will fill your young mind with all kinds of good material about how to ascertain the Constitution.[/quote]
I really don’t have any more time to contribute, but you are aware that Scalia believes some level of regulation is permissible under originalism based on legal precedent in the Founding era?
http://www.nationaljournal.com/scalia-guns-may-be-regulated-20120729
He also believes arms that aren’t hand-held are not covered by the Second Amendment. See his interview with Peter Robinson on Uncommon Knowledge, available on:
http://www.nationalreview.com/media/uncommonknowledge#
I think it is in the 1st or 2nd section.
No. The second amendment does not insure the protection of the other amendments. The means of protecting the other amendments is called, most often, “due process”. Many will recognize it in the form of legal representation, confrontation of witnesses and evidence against the accused, or petitioning congress. We, as a nation, depend on a common sense of reason and fairness and not on force to insure the amendments are not lost.
Neither is the second amendment a sly way of saying the people have the right to revolt or rebel against the government. As a matter of fact, people don’t need to ask for a right to revolt or rebel; instead, they simply do. For instance, did the crown grant the colonists a right to engage in a war for independence? Mmm … not-so-much, no. The colonists did it anyway. Britain didn’t permit the American colonies to revolt. Rather, some people of the colonies assumed the authority to issue a declaration of independence. They called it “The Declaration of Independence” and followed up with armed resistance.
So, rather than a right to use force to effect legal process, the second amendment is a constitutional minimum regarding arms regulations. In other words, only a total prohibition of keeping and bearing arms is barred. Aside from a total prohibition, the fed and the states may regulate such “keeping and bearing”. This reasoning follows decisions upholding regulations regarding prohibitions on knives with blades longer than 6 inches, waiting periods, registration, striking down total bans on arm (as in DC case), and prohibitions on certain arms. Any dreams of owning and operating anti-radiation missiles, will likely remain a dream.
Oh, and his Fox interview:
“I mean, obviously, the (2nd) amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried. It’s to ‘keep and bear.’ So, it doesn’t apply to cannons. But I suppose there are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes that will have to be – it will have to be decided.”
http://cnsnews.com/news/article/justice-scalia-2nd-amendment-limitations-it-will-have-be-decided
So, no F-16s, tanks, or cannons for Scalia - and quite obviously, Scalia doesn’t believe the Second Amendment amounts to a tit-for-tat equivalent of whatever the federal government owns, a citizen can own, and so the right does not extend to weapons that would allows the populace to “rival” the federal government. Also, in his 1997 book:
[i]In a 1997 book, “A Matter of Interpretation,” Justice Scalia wrote that he viewed “the Second Amendment as a guarantee that the federal government would not interfere with the right of the people to keep and bear arms.”
Yet, this next passage gives court watchers some pause. “Of course,” Justice Scalia continued, “properly understood, it is no limitation upon arms control by the states.”[/i]
Of course, that doesn’t mean that states have a blank check to disarm its populace, but Scalia, as an originalist gets the issue that must be worked through - states’ have historically been able to regulate arms to an extent, and the Second Amendment was not originally understood to reverse that.
I feel like I’ve heard that somewhere before.