[quote]Schlenkatank wrote:
A hunter’s take on gun control and the NRA.[/quote]
That author makes several bad arguments which are neither the root of the debate, nor indeed reflective of reality. For a rebuttal I would refer you to this article by Larry Correia:
http://1389blog.com/2012/12/23/larry-correia-refutes-the-gun-controllers-once-and-for-all/
It is very long but very thorough, with a bit of a brash style of writing which I enjoy (but which does not interfere with his arguments)
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Your analogy of choice would equate weapons ownership with the ability to speak. Consequently, the criminalization of certain kinds of speech would have as its analog the criminalization of certain uses, but not kinds, of weapons.
On the other hand, we could construct an analogy whereby different kinds of speech are made to correspond with different kinds of guns. The criminalization of some kinds of speech, then, would have as its analog the criminalization of certain kinds of guns…
[/quote]
No.
All guns are merely indiscriminate tools that use a propellant to launch a projectile. They are neither benign nor malicious.
[/quote]
All words are merely indiscriminate tools that use a sound to convey a thought. They are neither benign nor malicious. [/quote]
And just like when a gun is used for something wrong (murder, robbery, etc), the person is punished, when someone uses words in an evil manner (slander, false accusations, etc), they can be punished. Neither the guns nor the words are inherently evil, so neither should be illegal. When either is USED for evil, the people at fault need to be punished.
[quote]MaximusB wrote:
For some reason, some people are absolutely star-struck with politicians, as if they can do no wrong or ever lie. They take every statement as an undeniable promise, refusing to consider the possibility of an alternative agenda. You see this on both sides, but for some reason, the media and the Left have truly grabbed onto Obama as “the Great and Powerful OZ.”
What people don’t realize, that 99% of the time, these politicians are fucking scum-bums who are beholden to their highest campaign contributor. These are not nice people, they are almost always self-righteous in their thinking, and they know that the public will fall for the bullshit.
During the healthcare debate, Obama promised that it would not be acceptable to illegal aliens, and he was called a liar. HE WAS LYING, the media used this as the perfect jumpoff to “hating the first Black president.” I mean, who would have the brass balls to question the first Black president right ?
The public does not realize that laws are not written by politicians, but by LOBBYISTS.
Politicians = if they are breathing they are lying. [/quote]
This is very concrete.
Very intelligent analogy of politicians with idols.
Specially when you think of it in the context of religious idols: if they were to breathe they would be lying because they are simply not real.
Idolatry really explains this phenomenon!
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Their crimes are evident.
Their intent has been stated.
Our Liberties and Rights are hanging by a thread.
We have a peaceful nature, noted by our Founders, that allowed them to trust us as armed-to-the-teeth militiamen, above any and all governments in the world. And now they are taking advantage of that same peaceful nature to disarm and demoralize us and spitting in our faces while they do it…
How much more are we going to take? How do we restore this mess back to the way it was intended to be? When does the Sleeping Giant awake again to discover intruders in his house?[/quote]
OK, JP, I think I am coming to understand and respect your opinion on the establishment, the unorganized militia.
Allow me to ask an extended hypothetical.
Let’s say you have decided to “organize” an unorganized militia, and you enroll 50 to 200 able-bodies males, your neighbors in, say, Huntsville. You train together, they adore and respect you and you are elected their Colonel. Because you are not part of the Alabama State Defense Militia, or the National Guard, you do not answer to the Governor of Alabama. You are following the laws of Titles 10 and 32.
Next: the wily President–oh, lets just call him BHO–decides that this poses a threat to security. At an opportune moment, he declares some national emergency, and issues an executive order to his Attorney General to federalize your militia, under the same Titles 10 and 32 (yes, it is in there.)
Now, what do you, Colonel JP, do, if you disagree with the President’s policies?
This is the same for all military personnel, and it’s the difficult question that all of our Service-men and -women are going to have to answer soon. I have faith in them, and I know that many, if not most, will stand with the people and our Constitution.
In all actuality, that would be my preferred method of combating unconstitutional action on the part of the administration. Peaceful removal of those cancerous cells who wish to march us into slavery.
I would be honored to be a part of that solution.[/quote]
Yes, I suppose the UCMJ would apply: an illegal order is illegal, and an officer may disobey it.
But where–in Title 10 or Title 32 or in the Consitution or in the UCMJ–are you, Col. JP empowered to interpret the Constitutionality of an order? In my hypothetical, the Attorney General might find that your opinion is unsupported and has no merit, and therefore you are simply insubordinate, or in rebellion, or treasonous, depending on the circumstances. What law protects you? Why are you the ultimate arbiter–not of ethics or morality, which I may grant you–but of the “Constitutionality” of a policy? Depending on your answer, you might hang.
“Far-fetched,” eh? Not so far-fetched in my memory:
(see image. Nick Katzenbach was only the Deputy Attorney General, and Governor Wallace thought he was protecting the Constitution, too. General Graham was prepared to escort him off…energetically.)
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Another way to frame it:
The First Amendment protects citizens from punitive government action as a consequence of that citizen’s speech and/or writing.[/quote]
Aaah, but see, this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. 1A protects citizens from being prevented from speaking or writing their views and opinions. You are still responsible for any damages you cause by misusing that right. Hence, the laws of libel and slander.
Same with arms rights. You are to be punished for damages caused by misuse of weapons, but not prevented from ownership or use.
Basically, in a nutshell, if you don’t have the freedom to make mistakes (and incur the just punishment for them) then you don’t have freedom at all. As history shows, that just doesn’t work. It does not prevent crime.
Using the analogy of prison; These are people who have absolutely no freedom. They can’t even decide for themselves when to go to bed or get up in the morning. They are not allowed to have shoelaces or belts or pencils or anything else that could be used as a weapon, yet people are murdered in jail every day.
You cannot keep murderers from killing by taking weapons away. Period.
You can reduce the number of murderers by arming their potential victims (so they get killed in the act), and by killing them after their speedy conviction and they’ve used up their appeals and writ of habeas corpus.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
Yes, I suppose the UCMJ would apply: an illegal order is illegal, and an officer may disobey it.
But where–in Title 10 or Title 32 or in the Consitution or in the UCMJ–are you, Col. JP empowered to interpret the Constitutionality of an order? In my hypothetical, the Attorney General might find that your opinion is unsupported and has no merit, and therefore you are simply insubordinate, or in rebellion, or treasonous, depending on the circumstances. What law protects you? Why are you the ultimate arbiter–not of ethics or morality, which I may grant you–but of the “Constitutionality” of a policy? Depending on your answer, you might hang.[/quote]
Would you do me the favor of inventing an illegal order for which it would be difficult to determine Constitutionality? I’m trying to come up with a suitable situation, but I’m coming up blank.
If I were to hang for standing up for what I believe is right, I would consider it an honor.
“Far-fetched,” eh? Not so far-fetched in my memory:[/quote]
I was really referring to the admiration and respect, and being elected Colonel, and being called up out of the blue. lulz.
[quote](see image. Nick Katzenbach was only the Deputy Attorney General, and Governor Wallace thought he was protecting the Constitution, too. General Graham was prepared to escort him off…energetically.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door[/quote]
Gov. Wallace was delusional if he really thought he was defending the Constitution, as it defines no sub-class or any other basis for segregation. He was simply defending the status quo (which was actually contradictory to the Constitution), and he was wrong for doing so.
He also took that stand largely on his own. He didn’t issue any illegal orders. If he had, those State Troopers (i think?) who were with him would have been well within their rights to arrest him. I’m not sure about the deputy AG’s duties regarding the matter, but I think it would have been much more fitting if Kennedy had personally given the order to step aside.
[quote]JayPierce wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
Another way to frame it:
The First Amendment protects citizens from punitive government action as a consequence of that citizen’s speech and/or writing.[/quote]
Aaah, but see, this is a misunderstanding of the purpose of the Bill of Rights. 1A protects citizens from being prevented from speaking or writing their views and opinions. [/quote]
Absolutely not.
“Congress shall make no law…”
No law can affect the ability to speak. A law can, however, criminalize speech–that is, punish speech after it’s been spoken. And that is exactly what the First Amendment addresses. The writings of the founders make this abundantly clear.
So: the First Amendment prohibits legal punishment for speech. Brandenburg allows for legal punishment of speech in certain circumstances, namely when public safety necessitates it. Brandenburg, in other words, sets boundaries to a right which is presented without boundaries in the Bill of Rights.
A gun control bill would be as legitimate as Brandenburg. Which is not to say it will be effective or smart–but it will be exactly as legitimate.
Defamation, as an aside, is not a crime.
[quote]hungry4more wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
[quote]pushharder wrote:
[quote]smh23 wrote:
…Your analogy of choice would equate weapons ownership with the ability to speak. Consequently, the criminalization of certain kinds of speech would have as its analog the criminalization of certain uses, but not kinds, of weapons.
On the other hand, we could construct an analogy whereby different kinds of speech are made to correspond with different kinds of guns. The criminalization of some kinds of speech, then, would have as its analog the criminalization of certain kinds of guns…
[/quote]
No.
All guns are merely indiscriminate tools that use a propellant to launch a projectile. They are neither benign nor malicious.
[/quote]
All words are merely indiscriminate tools that use a sound to convey a thought. They are neither benign nor malicious. [/quote]
And just like when a gun is used for something wrong (murder, robbery, etc), the person is punished, when someone uses words in an evil manner (slander, false accusations, etc), they can be punished. Neither the guns nor the words are inherently evil, so neither should be illegal. When either is USED for evil, the people at fault need to be punished. [/quote]
Fissile material is not inherently evil, either. Should someone with the financial means to procure and process it be allowed to do so?
[quote](see image. Nick Katzenbach was only the Deputy Attorney General, and Governor Wallace thought he was protecting the Constitution, too. General Graham was prepared to escort him off…energetically.)
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stand_in_the_Schoolhouse_Door[/quote]
[quote]
Gov. Wallace was delusional if he really thought he was defending the Constitution, as it defines no sub-class or any other basis for segregation. He was simply defending the status quo (which was actually contradictory to the Constitution), and he was wrong for doing so.
He also took that stand largely on his own. He didn’t issue any illegal orders. If he had, those State Troopers (i think?) who were with him would have been well within their rights to arrest him. I’m not sure about the deputy AG’s duties regarding the matter, but I think it would have been much more fitting if Kennedy had personally given the order to step aside.[/quote]
On the contrary, Wallace would invoke the principles of nullification and interposition, which he considered Constitutional safeguards to States’ Rights, to continue the Alabama policy of strict segregation. The US Supreme Court had found otherwise of course. So Wallace, who had commanded the National Guard, stood in the schoolhouse door on Constitutional grounds, or so he said. When Nick Katzenbach phoned his report to RFK, it was indeed JFK, through his brother, who federalized the Guard. I believe the Guard did indeed fire on rioting UofA students–who, by your definition, were also part of The Militia.
So then, Colonel JP, if Wallace thought in his heart that he had the Constitution properly interpreted (which I doubt), and you do, too, would you obey JFK’s orders, fire on students defending States’ rights, or on Wallace himself?
This business about an “unorganized” militia, as a class of The Militia, which is defined only once in that single sectiion of the USC, still leaves me mystified. How is it different to a mob? The citation I offered is unreferenced with regard to legality, and while I respect you and your enthusiasm, I would like to see history and proof of its legitimacy.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
On the contrary, Wallace would invoke the principles of nullification and interposition, which he considered Constitutional safeguards to States’ Rights, to continue the Alabama policy of strict segregation.[/quote]
The American principle that all men are created equal and are endowed by their Creator with the unalienable rights of life, liberty, and the pursuit of happiness proves Gov. Wallace wrong from the get-go. That’s why the state segregation laws were struck down as unconstitutional.
He also did not take the proper steps for nullification, which he couldn’t because it was state laws that were struck down as unconstitutional by the SCOTUS, not a law made by congress that he was fighting.
He did have the Acts of Interposition on his side, but in the end it wasn’t something worth fighting for.
I can’t find a reference to the Guard opening fire, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Fire? Absolutely not! Arrest Wallace for obstruction of justice? Yes. Arrest students for rioting? Yes.
But, no. I wouldn’t obey the order to use deadly force in that case. I would take that court martial.
All you have to do is read the writings of our Founders. They placed more faith in the Militia of the People than they did in standing armies and governments.
To be blunt, the viewpoint that the police and military are the only ones who can be trusted with guns is absolutely ludicrous to me. Apparently, the people who are making this assertion have never been harassed or threatened by the cops.
[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
On the contrary, Wallace would invoke the principles of nullification and interposition, which he considered Constitutional safeguards to States’ Rights, to continue the Alabama policy of strict segregation.[/quote]
[quote]
No, actually the American principle that held the US in segregation until 1954 was Plessy vs Ferguson; the Creator did not vote in that one and the Declaration of Independence seemed to be suspended between 1896 and 1954.
In Brown vs the BOard of Education, Frankfurter and Warren worked for a unanimous decision without citation of the DoI:
“Therefore, we hold that the plaintiffs and others similarly situated for whom the actions have been brought are, by reason of the segregation complained of, deprived of the equal protection of the laws guaranteed by the Fourteenth Amendment.”
As you acknowledge below, SCOTUS decided, and it did so on the Fourteenth Amendment, without the need to refer to God or natural rights.
But wait: the laws and principles of Alabama had been intact for over 80 years; Wallace would argue that the Court decision was illegal, and he did so.
[quote}
I can’t find a reference to the Guard opening fire, but that doesn’t mean it didn’t happen.
Fire? Absolutely not! Arrest Wallace for obstruction of justice? Yes. Arrest students for rioting? Yes.
But, no. I wouldn’t obey the order to use deadly force in that case. I would take that court martial.
All you have to do is read the writings of our Founders. They placed more faith in the Militia of the People than they did in standing armies and governments.
To be blunt, the viewpoint that the police and military are the only ones who can be trusted with guns is absolutely ludicrous to me. Apparently, the people who are making this assertion have never been harassed or threatened by the cops.[/quote]
I will not make that assertion here.
But the Founders, and Title 10, made no specific permanent provisions that serve as the law. It is vacant. If people choose to call themselves a militia, how do I know that are not lawless?
I could provide an example, but it would not negate your argument against government “monopoly.”