[quote]pushharder wrote:
Put down the bottle and get back to me when you’re sober.[/quote]
I’m not interested in the huff-and-puff smokescreen, just answer the questions I raised re: Scalia above.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Though no one, despite all my pleading, has even attempted to offer another reading of the text… sure.[/quote]
The right to “bear” arms limits the protection to arms that can be “borne” - i.e., only weapons that are hand-held. In the modern age, the government has lots of weapons, far superior weapons, ones that are far bigger and cannot be held in-hand, and your right is only to a hand-held weapon, at best.
You cannot “rival” the federal government with hand-held arms when they have squadron on F-16s. If the Second Amendment protected your right to own any weapon the government does so that the populace can “rival” the federal government, it would have said as much and would not have limited the right to arms that you can “bear”.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
Guys, I never said this was an easy subject to whittle down and make pretty. But you’ve got to get your basic premises and fundamentals right before you run 'round waving your Constitution and trying to change things.[/quote]
The man who didn’t even know that the BOR didn’t apply to the states is lecturing everyone else on how to get the Constitution right?
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Thanks for the posts, TB. I had been aware of the excerpt from his book but not of the Fox interview.
Are we all agreed, then, that DD’s claim that the Second Amendment calls for a militia whose firepower rivals that of the federal government is false?
And, furthermore, that the Second Amendment does not necessarily protect every extant or conceivable weapon from restriction, even if they are used by our armed forces?[/quote]
I agree with that. First of all, this “rival the government” stuff was nonsense from out of the gate - there is no historical support for such a claim and it ia refuted by the text and spirit of the Constitution. Second, as we noted, the text supports a right to “bear” arms, making the “rival” theory empty on its face.
Despite libertarian fantasies to the contrary, textual rights in the Constitution are not and never have been absolute. Someone mentioned the First Amendment earlier - and I never commented - but First Amendment rights re: speech aren’t absolute, even political speech, which is the most important kind of “speech” the First Amendment is designed to protect.
The classic example is that you don’t have a right to drive around sleeping neighborhoods at 1am in the morning in a truck with giant speakers blaring how everyone should vote for Candidate X at hundreds of decibels. Political speech you are free to engage in? Yes. In the middle of the night with super-sized speakers? No, the First Amendment doesn’t entitle you as a right to do that - the First Amendment has always recognized time, place and manners restrictions in the name of public safety, public peace, etc.
Future decisions re: contours will likely take into consideration a state’s right to have similar limitations like these time, place and manner restrictions, and as Scalia has even recognized, states have historically enjoyed the right to do some of this.
By the way, I’d also be remiss if I didn’t mention that Scalia does not support the incorporation doctrine of the 14th Amendment as a philosophical matter (but recognizes the idea has precedential value and won’t necessarily reverse it out of hand). Thus,
If you have the time, he talks about some of that here:
http://www.c-spanvideo.org/program/RoleofInt
From the transcript:
Well, number one, I believe in moderation, and I don’t believe in strict construction, I am not a strict constructionist, I’m sorry to tell you that. I believe legal texts should be interpreted neither strictly nor loosely, they should be interpreted reasonably. And the example I often use is that if you really are serious about being a strict constructionist, you would say that the First Amendment would not be offended by Congress’ censoring handwritten mail, because the First Amendment only says, you know, it guarantees freedom of speech and of the press, and a handwritten letter is neither speech nor press if you want to be strict about it. But of course the First Amendment has always been understood as protecting freedom of expression, and I think that is a reasonable interpretation of it, and that’s the interpretation I apply. Which is why, you know, I was the fifth vote in the flag-burning case, which said this was an expression of contempt, just one way of expressing it, and you can’t have a law against an expression of contempt. Now, as to what would be the severe results of going over to a system of abandoning the living Constitution, I mean, you know, I do believe in the doctrine of stare decisis. Which means, for anybody who has any judicial philosophy, you’re willing to tolerate what’s been around a long time and everybody’s gotten used to. You can’t rip everything apart and reinvent the wheel every five years. Thus, most of the decisions that have been rendered under an evolutionary construction I would leave in place. Not all of them, but most of them. For example, perhaps the most–the biggest stretch that the Court has made was interpreting the Fourteenth Amendment to apply the Bill of Rights to the states. Nobody ever thought the Bill of Rights applied to the states. It begins “Congress shall make no law.” And when I was in law school, it was still a controversial proposition whether the Fourteenth Amendment incorporated the Bill of Rights and spat them out upon the states. But, you know, we’ve been doing this for fifty years now, it’s not a problem, I just take the same rules that I apply to the Bill of Rights against the federal government, and I apply it against the states. It is manageable, the people have gotten used to it, and I’m not about to tell the people of New York state or of any state that their state government is not bound by the First Amendment. Okay? So, stare decisis saves you from those wrenching departures that would make it impossible to go back to a correct interpretation of the Constitution.
If Scalia had his way, he wouldn’t have the 14th Amendment compel BOR application to the states, which I think, makes some sense, given the actual history and intent of the 14th Amendment. But, as a matter of practice, the horse is out of the barn, and it is judicially unmanageable to reverse course.
[quote]pushharder wrote:
BTW Bolt, if one is worthy of derision regarding the BOR it would be the one who claims that government “grants” rights to the people.
Shoo.
I should put you over my knee just for that alone.[/quote]
Stop dodging the questions. I look forward to your answers.
[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
Though no one, despite all my pleading, has even attempted to offer another reading of the text… sure.[/quote]
The right to “bear” arms limits the protection to arms that can be “borne” - i.e., only weapons that are hand-held. In the modern age, the government has lots of weapons, far superior weapons, ones that are far bigger and cannot be held in-hand, and your right is only to a hand-held weapon, at best.
You cannot “rival” the federal government with hand-held arms when they have squadron on F-16s. If the Second Amendment protected your right to own any weapon the government does so that the populace can “rival” the federal government, it would have said as much and would not have limited the right to arms that you can “bear”.[/quote]
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
What does that mean? What does that qualification for the right to own arms mean? Then, explain that justification without a militia that can reasonably resist the federal government.
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Are we all agreed, then, that DD’s claim that the Second Amendment calls for a militia whose firepower rivals that of the federal government is false?
[/quote]
Though no one, despite all my pleading, has even attempted to offer another reading of the text… sure.[/quote]
Of course we have. Push did it a few pages back and even his interpretation blasts the “militia rivaling the federal government” nonsense to pieces.[/quote]
I happen to have drunk a few beers and passed around firearms with Push. I think I have a good grasp of what he thinks. I’m asking you. Tell me what the second amendment says (again not your opinion on arms in modern society). specifically the qualification “A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”. What does that mean? and explain it without a militia that could by force reasonably resist the federal government.
You want to keep your second amendment right as long as possible because there will come a time when civility in the U.S. loses out to excessive force used by the side you are not a part of.
On that day you would pay anything for something that shoots as many rounds of ammo as possible and as fast as possible.
P.S. Did anyone think about Pearl Harbor Friday? I guess that can never happen again.
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
What does that mean? What does that qualification for the right to own arms mean? Then, explain that justification without a militia that can reasonably resist the federal government. [/quote]
‘Madison…pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so.’ - Heritage Guide to the Constitution
Federalist No. 46:
‘Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.’
The concept of having a Militia to keep a government in order is antiquated for us now…
I like my weapons, but I don’t want some dick designing shit for drive bye’s like they did back in the day with the Mack 10 and Mack 11. Stamp together some steel, loose standards and you create a weapon with the accuracy of a spray bottle on mist… The thing is basically perfect for a drive bye…
But at the same time they do stuff in California like, making the ar15 magazine well in such a way that it’s a pain to reload.
But, I can just get a mini 14 and have a very similar weapon (I like how this one feels more) and it’s perfectly legal.
Some of the laws intended to protect are retarded.
If you ask me, you should have to pass a psych evaluation, and I’d like to see some kind of tab on weapons. Like, bi annual selective audits to keep track of weapon locations and track trends.
I see no reason for me to own an M2, I probably shouldn’t own one, but if I could own one I would… But I would NEVER want civilians having access to something like this. Wrong person gets ahold of a weapon like this and they can pretty much kill buildings full of people without even having to walk inside…
I’d love to have my own M2, but it would be totally irresponsible to give it to me, or anyone not training or on a combat mission.
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
What does that mean? What does that qualification for the right to own arms mean? Then, explain that justification without a militia that can reasonably resist the federal government. [/quote]
‘Madison…pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so.’ - Heritage Guide to the Constitution
Federalist No. 46:
‘Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.’[/quote]
“impossible to subdue through military force” interesting…
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
[quote]SexMachine wrote:
[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
“A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State”
What does that mean? What does that qualification for the right to own arms mean? Then, explain that justification without a militia that can reasonably resist the federal government. [/quote]
‘Madison…pointed out a decisive difference between America and Europe: the American people were armed and would therefore be almost impossible to subdue through military force, even if one assumed that the federal government would try to use an army to do so.’ - Heritage Guide to the Constitution
Federalist No. 46:
‘Besides the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation, the existence of subordinate governments, to which the people are attached and by which the militia officers are appointed, forms a barrier against the enterprises of ambition, more insurmountable than any which a simple government of any form can admit of. Notwithstanding the military establishments in the several kingdoms of Europe, which are carried as far as the public resources will bear, the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms. And it is not certain that with this aid alone they would not be able to shake off their yokes.’[/quote]
“impossible to subdue through military force” interesting…[/quote]
Yeah, it’s pretty obviously wrong given the times. People used to be able to give the military a decent match during the revolution when we were still playing with muskets and the majority of people were actually hard, because life was hard.
Our MILITARY has been at war for years now, and they are hard… Civilians have been here at the shopping malls grubbing on some Sonic. Prior wars we would ration things out, people would go without in order to support the war via war bonds etc… G.W. told us all to go eat doughnuts and hooked everyone up with a taxbreak. So I don’t want to hear about how tough our civilians are, and I don’t like to hear, “We are at War” unless you have blood in the game.
Sorry to say, American people are largely spoiled, prissy and jaded about the war, and honestly a lot of Americans have things very easy and really are sore wimps compared to people from other parts of the world who are hard, because their lives are hard.