Gun Control III

Off Topic Politics & World Issues
623

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s a non-answer. In the hypo I set up, what stops that New York constitutional provision for being enforceable?

If not, why not?[/quote]

Well, let’s both play the game.

The year is 1830. New York calls a constitutional convention and adds a constitutional provision saying every New Yorker must renounce their faith, if any, and register as a member of the church of Satan with a certain local official, and each New Yorker is entitled to miss only one black sabbath, wherein young virgins are to be ceremonially raped and sacrificed, each month. That is now part of the 1830 New York constitution.

Is that good and binding law in 1830? Yes or no? If not, why not?

  • edited for grammar
    [/quote]

Not surprising.

You’re the one that thinks there were limits. Ok, so tell us what the limits were - under the hypo, the state constitution has been changed. So, enforceable or not?

You clearly believe it does or it doesn’t. How hard is it to simply say yes or no, and why?

624

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s a non-answer. In the hypo I set up, what stops that New York constitutional provision for being enforceable?

If not, why not?[/quote]

how about we move ahead a little ? Say after the civil war? Its been established that no state law can supercede the federal governments laws. The whole states rights thing is pointless after that and a waste of time arguing for. The federal government has established its authority. Regardless of the original intention of the founding fathers,that’s the way it is now and won’t change. Arguing it should be different is beside the point. Precedents etc have been established. There is no going back[/quote]

Here is why it matters - Heller and McDonald didn’t do away with a state’s right to enact reasonable restrictions in the name of public safety. What is reasonable? The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about that or provide any clarity. So where would you look? Historical practices and customs of the states who have been regulating in this policy space since the birth of the country.

Understanding what states have traditionally done in this area will be crucial to deciding what runs afoul of the Second Amendment after incorporation, and what doesn’t. And I think a lot of libertarian-oriented folks whose who really go no further than “it’s unconstitutional because I like guns and it just…feels…wrong!” are going to be sorely disappointed as these cases addressing reasonableness start emerging.

625

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

[quote]confusion wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:
That’s a non-answer. In the hypo I set up, what stops that New York constitutional provision for being enforceable?

If not, why not?[/quote]

how about we move ahead a little ? Say after the civil war? Its been established that no state law can supercede the federal governments laws. The whole states rights thing is pointless after that and a waste of time arguing for. The federal government has established its authority. Regardless of the original intention of the founding fathers,that’s the way it is now and won’t change. Arguing it should be different is beside the point. Precedents etc have been established. There is no going back[/quote]

Here is why it matters - Heller and McDonald didn’t do away with a state’s right to enact reasonable restrictions in the name of public safety. What is reasonable? The Second Amendment doesn’t say anything about that or provide any clarity. So where would you look? Historical practices and customs of the states who have been regulating in this policy space since the birth of the country.

Understanding what states have traditionally done in this area will be crucial to deciding what runs afoul of the Second Amendment after incorporation, and what doesn’t. And I think a lot of libertarian-oriented folks whose who really go no further than “it’s unconstitutional because I like guns and it just…feels…wrong!” are going to be sorely disappointed as these cases addressing reasonableness start emerging.
[/quote]

Perhaps. So,you’re saying that what the states have done should decide how the constitution is interpreted? I disagree. I liked the states rights idea for a long time. The states for the most part governed themselves,or at least had a lot more authority to decide the fate of their citizens,when the country was first founded. A strong federal government was established and enforced during the civil war. The federal government has given itself the authority to control the states with laws and force. I have woken up to this and realize it won’t change. The fed does not feel compelled to look to look thru historical state court documents and decisions,in order to decide the meaning of the 2nd ammendment,I assure you. Should they? That’s another question. Will they? Absolutely not. They will decide the meaning and enforce their decision. Open and shut csse.

626

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…For example, most people concede (including you, unless I heard you wrong) that the state can take away your guns if you get into trouble - the obvious example is a restriction on felons possessing guns…

[/quote]

And a Satan-worshiping convicted murderer of sacrificial virgins can have his freedom of worship taken away.[/quote]

No, just his ability to sacrifice more virgins. He can worship Satan all he wants in prison.

627

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]thunderbolt23 wrote:

…For example, most people concede (including you, unless I heard you wrong) that the state can take away your guns if you get into trouble - the obvious example is a restriction on felons possessing guns…

[/quote]

And a Satan-worshiping convicted murderer of sacrificial virgins can have his freedom of worship taken away.[/quote]

No, just his ability to sacrifice more virgins. He can worship Satan all he wants in prison.[/quote]

Seems logical to me :slight_smile:

630

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

No, just his ability to sacrifice more virgins. He can worship Satan all he wants in prison.[/quote]

No, he can’t “worship Satan ‘all he wants’ in prison.”

Think about it.[/quote]

lol. Ok. He can worship satan wearing an orange jumpsuit?

631

[quote] pushharder wrote:

The gun owner does not need a license from the government to keep and bear nor does he commit a crime until – he crosses the line and starts keeping and bearing a bit more passionately than permitted by law like in the cases of “rioting” (see TB’s post about 19th century state laws) or robbing banks or shooting up his neighbor’s BBQ.

There’s consistency in my position.

And I’m right.[/quote]

But if, in the time period we are talking about, a state changes its constitution to require a license, are you still right? What defense would you have against having to get a license?

633

[quote] pushharder wrote:

Your hypothetical was about as likely to occur as mine.[/quote]

Nonsense. But likelihood isn’t the issue, in any event.

Do you have an answer? Or not?

You seem to think - and even comfortably know - there was a limit, and therefore the provision wouldn’t be enforceable.

So, just tell us. How hard could it be, since you know already?

635

No, you haven’t explained it, and you know you haven’t explained it. You are deliberately avoiding answering my question because you know the consequences. If you answer that the hypothetical constitutional change is perfectly enforceable, you concede that your views on states’ rights were wrong and based on illusions rather than historical fact. If you answer no, it isn’t enforceable, you know you can’t provide a credible justification why.

Such as it is. Your refusal to answer speaks volumes more than had you simply provided an answer and tried to defend it.

638

C’mon, everyone is reading this and they get it. I ask for a yes or a no answer to my question - since I have asked it, you haven’t once answered yes or no.

Just think - you just typed three paragraphs or so. How about one post with a yes or no answering my question.

Yes? Or no?

640

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]Varqanir wrote:

No, just his ability to sacrifice more virgins. He can worship Satan all he wants in prison.[/quote]

No, he can’t “worship Satan ‘all he wants’ in prison.”

Think about it.[/quote]

Allow me to quote from the section of the US Army Chaplain’s manual concerning the Church of Satan:

[i]BASIC TEACHINGS OR BELIEFS: The Church of Satan worships Satan, most clearly symbolized in the Roman God Lucifer, the bearer of light, the spirit of the air, and the personification of enlightenment. Satan is not visualized as an anthropomorphic being, rather he represents the forces of nature. To the Satanist, the self is the highest embodiment of human life and is sacred. The Church of Satan is essentially a human potential movement, and members are encouraged to develop whatever capabilities they can by which they might excel. They are, however, cautioned to recognize their limitations - an important factor in this philosophy of rational self-interest. Satanists practice magick, the art of changing situations or events in accordance with one’s will, which would, using normally accepted methods, be impossible.

ETHICAL PRACTICES: The ethical stance of the Church of Satan is summarized in the Nine Satanic Statements: “(1) Satan represents indulgence, instead of abstinence!; (2) Satan represents vital existence, instead of spiritual pipe dreams!; (3) Satan represents undefiled wisdom, instead of hypocritical self-deceit!; (4) Satan represents kindness to those who deserve it, instead of love wasted on ingrates!; (5) Satan represents vengeance, instead of turning the other cheek!; (6) Satan represents responsibility for the responsible, instead of concern for psychic vampires!; (7) Satan represents man as just another animal, sometimes better, more often worse than those that walk on all fours, who, because of his ‘divine and intellectual development’ has become the most vicious animal of all!; (8) Satan represents all of the so-called sins, as they lead to physical, mental, or emotional gratification!; (9) Satan has been the best friend the church has ever had, as he has kept it in business all these years!”

WHO MAY CONDUCT A RITUAL? Anyone, but a priest is required for group worship.

IS GROUP WORSHIP REQUIRED? No, but it is strongly encouraged, because it is a strong reinforcement of the faith and instillation of power.

WORSHIP REQUIREMENTS: Worship in the Church of Satan is based upon the belief that man needs ritual, dogma, fantasy, and enchantment. Worship consists of magical rituals and there are three basic kinds: sexual rituals, to fulfill a desire; compassionate rituals, to help another; and destructive rituals, used for anger, annoyance, or hate. Grottos often gather on Friday evenings for group rituals.[/i]

Yeah, I’ll concede that it might be difficult to construct a proper altar, or procure the requisite black robes, swords, chalices, elixirs etc. in a prison environment, but if one wants to worship Satan in prison, he can.

My favourite part of this section:

ANY OTHER PRACTICES OR TEACHINGS [of Satanism] WHICH MAY CONFLICT WITH MILITARY DIRECTIVES OR PRACTICES: None.

In other words, worshipping Satan is not at all inconsistent with being a member of the United States Army.

Think about THAT.