Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:
The concept of having a Militia to keep a government in order is antiquated for us now…

[/quote]

That doesn’t change original intent.

If the Second Amendment if rendered antiquated by whatever means fine…repeal it. While you’re at it repeal the Third; it too is antiquated. In addition, the Ninth and Tenth are ignored and therefore irrelevant as well. In fact, maybe it’s time to do a complete overhaul of the Bill of Rights. Have at it. Put 'em all in your Slice & Dice-a-matic and flush 'em down your Disposall.

But until you get all that accomplished be intellectually honest and don’t contort, twist, pervert, and reshape your square peg so you can shove it through the round hole of the Constitution.
[/quote]

I’m being honest. I understand the point very well, I also understand that giving people means to kill one another in numbers, in such a non personal way stretches even my belief in the potential of man.

If an individual puts their mind to something, they can become something like the OKC bomber right now. If you make available all the weapons and arsenal of the military, you take away the person having to put their mind to something… Do you have any idea how much damage an unstable artillery man could do if he got his hands on some of the equipment we have?

Back in the day when we had muskets, a single man could only do so much damage. Today, just the nature of weaponry is such that a single person could kill thousands. Just think about what would happen if someone goes on a rampage with a surface to surface missile battery? There are crazy enough people in the country to do it too.

Really, if the Militia is supposed to be strong enough to stand up to our military, the only thing I could think of that might satisfy that criteria is changing up the actual hegemony of the military itself. Maybe some kind of structure where troops are responsible to the state they are from and maybe the top of the chain of command could be the state Governor. States would be in charge of all military assets, this takes away the military of power of government and makes it more local. As is, I don’t see it being conducive for a very effective military because really you break working units into state elements… Like, the Marine Corps would no longer be work or function the same. It changes the whole dynamic, I don’t know if it’s for good or bad…

…“Half of America: I’d kill to protect my own”

"Society would break down immediately following a major catastrophe such as an EMP detonation, which would destroy electronics, with 47 percent of Americans saying they would expect serious, sustained life-threatening civil unrest within two weeks, according to a new poll.

And another huge number say they would expect further deterioration after two weeks, but for many that development would be irrelevant, because they say they expect they would be dead by then.

The sobering results of the new poll from Wenzel Strategies, a public-opinion research and media consulting company, also shows a stunning number of Americans say they would be willing to kill a neighbor under such circumstances.

The poll, conducted Nov. 28-Dec. 3 with a margin of error of 3.14 percentage points, said 58 percent of Americans would be somewhat or very willing to kill someone if a member of their family was threatened with attack during an emergency.

But that would be because 50 percent expect that within two weeks of a catastrophic emergency, their home, person or family member would be physically attacked by someone desperate for food, money or commodities like gasoline.

It was that question about surviving that brought home the incredible perspective Americans hold.

Twenty-one percent said they would survive without services provided by electronic power less than a week and another 28 percent said less than two weeks. By the end of two months, three in four Americans say, they would be dead.

Asked about the national electrical grid, one of the most important components of our modern civilization, a huge majority of the American public 74 percent acknowledges we are far too dependent on the grid. Interestingly, this is a question on which there is no variance based on partisan affiliation.

Asked how long they think it would take, after a national failure of the electrical grid, for serious, sustained, life-threatening civil unrest to break out in America, 24 percent said they think such violence would break out within the first week. Another 23 percent said it would happen within two weeks. About the same percentage 27 percent said such violence would occur sometime between two weeks and two months after failure of the grid.

While 19 percent said it would take longer than two months for life-threatening violence to break out, just 7 percent said they did not believe Americans would resort to such violence.

The survey also shows that while Americans may fear a major catastrophe, about half said they could personally last only a couple of weeks without electricity, gas, or other basic conveniences of modern life in the wake of such a tragedy. Just 26 percent said they could survive longer than two months, he said.

What can you do to protect yourself if, and when, the unthinkable happens? Find out here!

A huge fear stemming from the failure of core utilities or services is violence and 27 percent said they think that it would take less than a week before either they or someone in their immediate family would be physically attacked by someone desperate for food, money, or commodities, or by someone taking advantage of social chaos. Another 24 percent said it would happen within two weeks of a catastrophe. That more than half of respondents expected a relatively swift collapse in social order is absolutely alarming.

He said given those concerns, it’s not surprising that the survey also found that 58 percent of respondents would be perfectly willing to kill an attacker using a firearm or other method of self-defense.

Just 14 percent said they would not be willing at all to kill such an attacker. Who knows how those people would react.

The findings in this survey are unquestionably disturbing on many levels. While Americans believe we are the targets of a major future catastrophe, and they are mostly distrusting that their fellow citizens will band together to deal with the aftermath of such an attack in a constructive way, they are mostly unwilling to take steps to be prepared to deal with the possibility of a disaster. On the one, hand, it is understandable that people dont want to be consumed with thoughts of doomsday scenarios, but it is alarming that so few have taken affirmative steps to survive without the conveniences of modern, everyday life.

See detailed results of survey questions:

Many people keep a few extra supplies around the house for emergencies, but there are some who make substantial preparations for such a catastrophe. They are known as doomsday preppers. Would you consider yourself to be a doomsday prepper or do you know someone who is?

One of the biggest weaknesses in American society today is thought to be its reliance on electrical power. Do you agree or disagree that Americans have become too dependent on the electrical grid?

Thinking about the social order across America, if we were to lose electrical power nationwide either because of the explosion of an electro-magnetic pulse device, a computer hack, or some other attack on the electrical grid, how long do you think it would take for serious, sustained life-threatening civil unrest to break out?

If America, or your community, were struck with a catastrophic emergency, how long do you think you personally could survive without any support from such things as gas stations, electricity from the grid, grocery stores, or water from the tap?

If America, or your community, were struck with a catastrophic emergency, how long do you think it would take before your home, your person, or a member of your immediate family would be physically attacked by someone desperate for food, money, or commodities like gasoline, or by someone taking advantage of social chaos?

If you or a member of your family were threatened with attack by a neighbor under such a catastrophic emergency, how willing would you be to kill that attacker using a firearm or other method in self-defense?"

Not in a large enough way to be meaningful long term. You may got some close neighbors here and there forming small bands for mutual benefit for a while or even a bit larger than that in an area where a strong leader type is present, but today? Most of the people lovin all over each other in these forums would blow each others brains out for a granola bar if the situation got desperate.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Severiano wrote:

…If an individual puts their mind to something, they can become something like the OKC bomber…There are crazy enough people in the country to do it too. [/quote]

The OKC did his dirty deed with fertilizer.

Sooooooo…shall we ban fertilizer?
[/quote]

No, you ban the end product/ the bomb itself…

If a person has the impulse to shoot me in the head, what is more efficient? Purchasing all the raw materials to create a rifle, a round and ammo, or going to the gun shop and buying one?

A person who wants to kill another, on impulse who hasn’t settled down to think… Would he purchase the materials for a rifle, and then try to forge one and create the ammo for it, or would they head to the local rifle shop and purchase what’s needed?

If you wanted to blow up my hotel, it would take you some time to get the materials together. You would have to plan it all out, every last detail… Vs. if you purchased a surface to surface missile, or even an M2. All it takes is someone to lose their temper, press a button and people can disappear. Otherwise he can head over to his arsenal, grab the m2 and I don’t even want to think about how much damage a person could do with a single ammo can.

People with psych problems generally show them somewhat suddenly and usually they are people in their mid 20’s.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

I’d like to read/hear Scalia in context before responding.[/quote]

How about that? You invoke Scalia, I show you that Scalia doesn’t support your view, and ask for your confirmation on that with two easy, direct questions, and suddenly you back up like traffic with a “ah, uh, erm, see what happened is, I need, uh context, cuz, see…”

Of course.

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Whatever you do don’t quote Madison where he interferes with Bolt’s narrative that gun control was rampant in early US history and/or where things tend to lean toward “rivaling.”[/quote]

That isn’t my narrative, but how would you even know if it is or not when you don’t know the history at all, which it’s clear you don’t?

The point of the Second Amendment was to restrict the federal government from interfering with the right to arms, which goes straight to Madison’s point that the feds can’t “disarm” the people of the states. States were left to handle that as they saw fit, which they did, which most times included robust rights to arms (for obvious reasons), but in some cases restricted the right.

That isn’t inconsistent with the Second Amendment or its mission - and Justice Scalia agrees.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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.[/quote]

Here’s your problem: even if the qualifying phrase said, unambiguously, “The right of the people to come together and resist them federal sumbitches when they start overstepping their boundaries and visiting tyranny upon the people and the states,” you’re stuck with the text “keep and bear arms”.

But, since Push wussed out when cornered, I’ll ask you what you think about Scalia’s - an originalist and one of the most conservative members of the Court and a proud gun owner - view:

  1. Scalia thinks states have the right to impose some level of restriction on the right because the states have historically had the authority to do so.

Agree with Scalia, or not?

  1. Scalia doesn’t think the Second Amendment protects the right to own anything that isn’t hand-held.

Agree with Scalia, or not?

Cray left-wing statist Scalia confirming the Second Amendment doesn’t apply to “cannon”:

[i]“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/...have-be-decided
[/i]

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

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.[/quote]

Here’s your problem: even if the qualifying phrase said, unambiguously, “The right of the people to come together and resist them federal sumbitches when they start overstepping their boundaries and visiting tyranny upon the people and the states,” you’re stuck with the text “keep and bear arms”.

But, since Push wussed out when cornered, I’ll ask you what you think about Scalia’s - an originalist and one of the most conservative members of the Court and a proud gun owner - view:

  1. Scalia thinks states have the right to impose some level of restriction on the right because the states have historically had the authority to do so.

Agree with Scalia, or not?

  1. Scalia doesn’t think the Second Amendment protects the right to own anything that isn’t hand-held.

Agree with Scalia, or not?[/quote]

Still got nothing huh?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Still got nothing huh?[/quote]

Look, man - I’ve tried to be patient and sustain a good conversation, but this cartoonish bluster when it’s clear you barely have looked into this issue is wearing thin.

So, to establish a baseline of understanding - do you agree with those two points that Scalia holds for himself, or not?

Those are at the heart of the countours of the right the Second Amendment protects. So, yes or no?

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Still got nothing huh?[/quote]

Look, man - I’ve tried to be patient and sustain a good conversation, but this cartoonish bluster when it’s clear you barely have looked into this issue is wearing thin.

So, to establish a baseline of understanding - do you agree with those two points that Scalia holds for himself, or not?

Those are at the heart of the countours of the right the Second Amendment protects. So, yes or no?[/quote]

Why answer when I could dodge the question?

I’ve asked a simple direct question. Why should I continue to respond and answer you when you don’t extend the same courtesy?

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Why answer when I could dodge the question?

I’ve asked a simple direct question. Why should I continue to respond and answer you when you don’t extend the same courtesy?[/quote]

What answer have I not responded to? If you have one, let me know, and I’ll answer it.

In the meantime, a simple yes or no on my questions will do.

To Re-re-re-re-re-post:

“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.

By the way, there are like 50 posts in this thread attributing things to me I’ve never said or claimed. I’ve have no explained numerous times what I do/do not believe and what I am discussing and have been thoroughly ignored in favor of semantics and straw men.

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:
To Re-re-re-re-re-post:

“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]

Count six posts up, and I provided you an answer (and I will repost):

Here’s your problem: even if the qualifying phrase said, unambiguously, “The right of the people to come together and resist them federal sumbitches when they start overstepping their boundaries and visiting tyranny upon the people and the states,” you’re stuck with the text “keep and bear arms”.

Problem one with your “rival the federal government” theory - no matter what the prefatory statement is, the constitutional right is restricted to arms you can “bear”. So while you may want the prefatory statement - “militia to resist the government” - to expand the right to include “whatever weapons the government has so the people can rival it”, the secondary statement restricts the right to only weapons to can “bear”, which originally meant hand-held.

That is why I noted above - word the prefatory phrase any way you like, you still are stuck with the “bear arms” problem that completely undercuts your “rival the federal government” theory.

Now, your turn.