Bob Costas and the 2nd Amendment

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
441

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[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.[/quote]

Total bullshit. If you can’t answer the straight question, I’m done with you. I asked you what quoted text means. You responded about other text and completely ignored the quote and question.

442

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

Total bullshit. If you can’t answer the straight question, I’m done with you. I asked you what quoted text means. You responded about other text and completely ignored the quote and question. [/quote]

C’mon, dude. Stop wasting time.

The phrase well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State means for the purpose of a militia to be well-trained and prepared to defend the security of a free state.

Now, answer mine.

EDIT: Oh, and to your question of “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.”…

…that is precisely the one I answered when noting that no matter what the prefatory statement says, the language “right to bear” undercuts any claim that a person is entitled to own a weapon just because the federal government does (like a missile or a fighter jet) because those weapons are not hand-held, to which the right restricts.

Now, your turn.

443

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< 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”. >>>[/quote]Assuming Scalia’s historical interpretation is correct. Do we KNOW that “bear” is meant to be defined as such weaponry as can be literally physically “borne” by a man? Or are we taking Scalia’s very eminent word for it? What about a woman? What if a particular piece is too heavy for anybody below the level of say, Andy Bolton? If he can “bear” it then it’s protected? Or no because he’s exceptional? Is the intent that if it can be “borne” by the average sedentary shlub and women who pass the fireman’s test then it’s ok? But one ounce beyond that and it’s not? What if they can “bear” it, but not operate it while being “borne”. They have to put it down first, but they “bore” it to the place of operation? What if they can drag it? Does that count as bearing? Handtruck? “Borne” but with special “bearing” aid equipment such as shoulder mounts, slings, straps etc, without which such “bearing” would be impossible? Do we count the accessory as part of the weapon and hence include it as part of the intent of the amendment? OR do we not and call it trickery in an attempt to fool the founders and Scalia?

OR… has technology so changed the world and hence weaponry along with it that it makes no difference WHAT they intended because whether I like it or not it is simply inapplicable to today?

445

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Assuming Scalia’s historical interpretation is correct. Do we KNOW that “bear” is meant to be defined as such weaponry as can be literally physically “borne” by a man? Or are we taking Scalia’s very eminent word for it? What about a woman? What if a particular piece is too heavy for anybody below the level of say, Andy Bolton? If he can “bear” it then it’s protected? Or no because he’s exceptional? Is the intent that if it can be “borne” by the average sedentary shlub and women who pass the fireman’s test then it’s ok? But one ounce beyond that and it’s not? What if they can “bear” it, but not operate it while being “borne”. They have to put it down first, but they “bore” it to the place of operation? What if they can drag it? Does that count as bearing? Handtruck? “Borne” but with special “bearing” aid equipment such as shoulder mounts, slings, straps etc, without which such “bearing” would be impossible? Do we count the accessory as part of the weapon and hence include it as part of the intent of the amendment? OR do we not and call it trickery in an attempt to fool the founders and Scalia?

OR… has technology so changed the world and hence weaponry along with it that it makes no difference WHAT they intended because whether I like it or not it is simply inapplicable to today?[/quote]

The text has to be read reasonably in the context of the times, assuming originalism - that is, “borne” by a reasonably, able-bodied man, etc.

And for purposes of “bear”, just look up the definition (to “hold” or “support”).

Here is the things: assuming technology has changed and rendered that concept moot because so few weapons are “borne” any more from a military perspective, that is perfectly fine to recognize. But from the standpoint of the text and original intent, the law doesn’t recognize a fighter jet as being “borne”.

If you think so, then you are part of the crew of the Living Constitution - that is, what is “constitutional” is what the words ought to mean, instead of what they say or were originally understood to say. That is where our dear libertarian friends appear to be - the Second Amendment may not have meant that a person should have the right to a fighter jet, but it ought to since times have changed, and so it therefore does.

Go for that argument if you want to, that’s fine, just say so. But that is not originalism or anything close to it, so Push and DD can stop pretending that their ideas have some basis in historical understanding or original intent.

447

[quote]pushharder wrote:

Bolt, you would do well to provide sources that support your expressed contention that state gun control was rife in early America and your implicit contention that those laws were based on weapon technology and its connection to civil safety.[/quote]

I didn’t say gun regulation was “rife” - I said states imposed some restrictions (and they sometimes even required ownership), and that is [/i]ipso facto[/i] evidence that the right was not absolute. And I already noted some instances. I also noted that the supreme court of Arkansas upheld regulations in the 1830s on the basis that the state recognized a collective right over an individual right.

You interested in them? Feel free to look them up - I’ve done enough of your homework for you.

Two questions are pending for you re: Scalia - do you want to address them or not?

450

[quote]pushharder wrote:

But the feds ARE disarming the people of the states. Everywhere.

And you’re supporting it, or seem to be, by contending that the states traditionally could do so and so implicitly, now that the federal government is more powerful than ever and the states have effectively ceded much of their power to the feds, we need to be “reasonable” and let the infringement of liberty continue.

Because let’s face it…we have to disarm millions of innocents so that a few crazies are hopefully inhibited, all in the interest of “safety.” [/quote]

Nope, the feds aren’t disarming the people of the states because states could traditionally do so. That’s dumb as hell and makes no sense.

States traditionally had the power to regulate arms and there was no absolute right to arms ownership and carrying (subject to their own state constitutions). The states’ rights to do that did not disappear overnight - if they used to have this power, but they don’t now, you need to explain why.

No, it wasn’t because the states had been misunderstanding the BOR all these years. There is an argument that the 14th Amendment took away states’ rights to handle arms rights on their own by making the BOR applicable to the states. But, as we’ve discussed, that is problematic, since no one actually believes the intent of the 14th Amendment was to remedy the “denial” of people’s federal Second Amendment rights by the states.

Your problem is that the actual constitutional mechanics of how to get from here to there are a mess and aren’t subject to easy solutions - but you skip all that, because you have a pre-determined outcome you like and refuse to be bothered by the fact that original intent and history don’t exactly support your idea.

This is and always has been a states’ rights issue - do states enjoy the right they always have to regulate arms independent of the federal government’s influence? Or did the 14th Amendment change that?

Any kind of federal ban on weapons has little or nothing to do with that.

451

Why hasn’t anyone referred to the National Firearms Act (“NFA”)? Not only does it impose a “tax” on certain weapons, it outright bans some weapons. And the outright ban should be a point that any “originalist” or follower of Scalia would take issue with.

In particular, the issue of “bear”. The NFA’s ban on “any other weapons” reaches guns that are designed not only for easy carry or easy “bearing” but guns that do so by being disguised as other items, e.g., a gun designed to look like a cellphone.

Certainly, an “originalist” or Scalia would rail against such a ban. The truth, however, is that the ban on AOWs and destructive devices (“DD”) is the law of the land. And, even if the conservative side of the Supreme Court gained a majority, there is no reason to believe that the NFA would be struck down under the Second Amendment.

452

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< And for purposes of “bear”, just look up the definition (to “hold” or “support”) >>>[/quote]Where can we find this documented. I ask because this seems like an idiotic redundancy for men of such clearly high intelligence. In other words had they not included the word “bear”, then people might think they were allowing that citizens could own weapons as long as they never picked them up? [quote]Ok, kids, just to be clear here, not only do you get to KEEP arms, but were gonna let ya carry em around too.[/quote]I may be wrong, but I always took the word “bear” to mean essentially the same thing as “wield” or “put to deadly use as per their design if a lawful need were to arise”. Simply put to “use lawfully”. That is still somewhat of a redundancy, but not nearly on the same level as “bear” being defined “holding in one’s hands”. Like I say. I could be wrong.
EDITED

453

[quote]pushharder wrote:

For instance, if fully automatic weapons which have existed since ~mid 1800’s are such “safety concerns” that they must be prohibited from private ownership (technically they aren’t, effectively they are) why weren’t thousands and thousands of innocents dying at the hands of "crazies’ prior to the 1930’s when the federal government began its assault on the Second Amendment?[/quote]

You don’t get it, and probably never will. The issue is not what a state should do, the only question from a constitutional point of view is what a state can do.

States might pass all kinds of stupid laws, but that is irrelevant - states have always had the ability to pass laws in the name of public safety as part of general police powers. Think those laws are dumb? Call your state representative and change the law.

455

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

Assuming Scalia’s historical interpretation is correct. Do we KNOW that “bear” is meant to be defined as such weaponry as can be literally physically “borne” by a man? Or are we taking Scalia’s very eminent word for it? What about a woman? What if a particular piece is too heavy for anybody below the level of say, Andy Bolton? If he can “bear” it then it’s protected? Or no because he’s exceptional? Is the intent that if it can be “borne” by the average sedentary shlub and women who pass the fireman’s test then it’s ok? But one ounce beyond that and it’s not? What if they can “bear” it, but not operate it while being “borne”. They have to put it down first, but they “bore” it to the place of operation? What if they can drag it? Does that count as bearing? Handtruck? “Borne” but with special “bearing” aid equipment such as shoulder mounts, slings, straps etc, without which such “bearing” would be impossible? Do we count the accessory as part of the weapon and hence include it as part of the intent of the amendment? OR do we not and call it trickery in an attempt to fool the founders and Scalia?

OR… has technology so changed the world and hence weaponry along with it that it makes no difference WHAT they intended because whether I like it or not it is simply inapplicable to today?[/quote]

The text has to be read reasonably in the context of the times, assuming originalism - that is, “borne” by a reasonably, able-bodied man, etc.

And for purposes of “bear”, just look up the definition (to “hold” or “support”).

Here is the things: assuming technology has changed and rendered that concept moot because so few weapons are “borne” any more from a military perspective, that is perfectly fine to recognize. But from the standpoint of the text and original intent, the law doesn’t recognize a fighter jet as being “borne”.

If you think so, then you are part of the crew of the Living Constitution - that is, what is “constitutional” is what the words ought to mean, instead of what they say or were originally understood to say. That is where our dear libertarian friends appear to be - the Second Amendment may not have meant that a person should have the right to a fighter jet, but it ought to since times have changed, and so it therefore does.

Go for that argument if you want to, that’s fine, just say so. But that is not originalism or anything close to it, so Push and DD can stop pretending that their ideas have some basis in historical understanding or original intent.[/quote]

The restriction of bearing:
1 doesn’t necessitate carrying. You can bear a load by pulling it. You can bear responsibility. I can bring a cannon to bear. I can bear a cannon with my truck. In context physical carry as a qualification is absurd. I have morse guns that I could carry, got to get rid of some I guess…

Hell, in Tennessee a weapon in your vehicle (and not on your person) is still legally defined as carrying.

2 Bearing isn’t even a qualification for the arms. It’s one thing the government cannot restrict. NOT what the person must do. Stating that the government cannot restrict the bearing of arms does not necessitate that the arms be borne to prevent restriction. You can keep a rifle in a case, never bear it, and it’s still protected. You have the right (if you choose) to keep arms, and also the right (if you choose) to bear them. Much the same way I could bear an arm that I do not keep.

456

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[center]“your implicit contention that those laws were based on weapon technology and its connection to civil safety.”[/center]

Don’t hide ^.[/quote]

Well, no, I didn’t have an “implicit contention” - my point was that states have the broad authority to regulate in the name of public safety, and they always have. Arms regulation falls under that police power.

Re: “don’t hide” - I wouldn’t be preaching from that pulpit given the fact that you tucked tail and dissembled in plain view when I asked you questions re: Scalia. Let’s hear some answers.

458

[quote]DoubleDuce wrote:

The restriction of bearing:
1 doesn’t necessitate carrying. You can bear a load by pulling it. You can bear responsibility. I can bring a cannon to bear. I can bear a cannon with my truck. In context physical carry as a qualification is absurd. I have morse guns that I could carry, got to get rid of some I guess…[/quote]

Now you’re just making it up as you go along. To “bear” means to “hold up” or “support”. You don’t “bear” a cannon with your truck, not as the word is commonly understood by reasonable people. This is just getting silly - you’re just trying to redefine and re-contextualize the ordinary meaning of words to fit your political agenda.

Congratulations. You’re a left-winger.

Yes, the right says both “keeping” and “bearing”. You get to do both. That doesn’t change the fact that “bear” restricts you to those arms that are hand-held.

459

[quote]Tiribulus wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:<<< And for purposes of “bear”, just look up the definition (to “hold” or “support”) >>>[/quote]Where can we find this documented. I ask because this seems like an idiotic redundancy for men of such clearly high intelligence. In other words had they not included the word “bear”, then people might think they were allowing that citizens could own weapons as long as they never picked them up? [quote]Ok, kids, just to be clear here, not only do you get to KEEP arms, but were gonna let ya carry em around too.[/quote]I may be wrong, but I always took the word “bear” to mean essentially the same thing as “wield” or “put to deadly use as per their design if a lawful need were to arise”. Simply put to “use lawfully”. That is still somewhat of a redundancy, but not nearly on the same level as “bear” being defined “holding in one’s hands”. Like I say. I could be wrong.
EDITED
[/quote]

Not to mention he also essentially claims that the authors were dumb and added a superfluous statement to the beginning of the amendment that couldn’t possible mean anything.

460

[quote]pushharder wrote:

This is exactly my problem with your argument. Funny deal.[/quote]

Well, it can’t be, mainly because it has become painfully clear you have really no idea what the constitutional mechanics are.

And, no, I don’t have a political agenda that I am working backwards from. I believe in an individual right to a gun, and I own one (more than one).