Gun Control

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Concession? What concession?

Conspiracy to murder is not part of the process of removing tyrants from office. You need to do some real learning from real historical sources.

Not being in agreement with assassinations is not a concession. It is an affirmation that every single person, regardless of their crimes, is entitled to due process of law. Even traitorous tyrants.

Arguing with you liberals really is like playing chess with a pigeon; You squawk loudly about nothing, knock over all the pieces, take a big shit in the middle of the board, and then fly back to your flock, proclaiming your great victory.[/quote]

I was only reflecting on an argument, which I have seen here and in other threads, that among the intents of the 2nd Amendment is the assurance that an armed citizenry may choose to overthrow an oppressive government, by arms if necessary. (You yourself have just argued against the monopoly on violence that law enforcement officers may hold.)
There are self-designated militia who agree with this and “prepare” for that eventuality. (I will avoid the use of the word conspiracy, if you like.)
To overthrow the Federal government by force will entail the use of extrajudicial violence, death, mayhem.
You have agreed that this is not legal, but murder by another name. I happen to agree with you.

Now then, if we agree, it’s a concession (not a defeat!). That is how discussions progress.

And if we agree, how can I be a liberal? (Watch that name-calling, Colonel!)

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]pushharder wrote:
It must be really uncomfortable to be a “The law can and should be used to ‘fix’ any ‘problem’ there is, Bill of Rights be damned,” guy and then come to the realization that not everyone, even intelligent folks, is willing to board your choo-choo bound for utopia.[/quote]

This can’t be directed against me, since I have never said anything like that. So who do you intend to discredit here?
My part of this thread was to explore the logical consequences of a notion of the “unorganized” militia–an item of which I had been previously unaware. I have not argued against the 2nd amendment, or the BoR, and I certainly am no friend of the Federal Government’s interference in my life.

And I would not stand the interference of a self-appointed armed “militia” which would act lawlessly. There are all sorts of ways to adjudicate disputes–to “fix any problem” as you would have it–but a lawless armed and violent “select” militia is not among them.

[JayPierce]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I was only reflecting on an argument, which I have seen here and in other threads, that among the intents of the 2nd Amendment is the assurance that an armed citizenry may choose to overthrow an oppressive government, by arms if necessary.[/quote]
True.

You yourself have just argued against the monopoly on violence that law enforcement officers may hold.

True.

There are self-designated militia who agree with this and “prepare” for that eventuality.

True.

I will avoid the use of the word conspiracy, if you like.

Doesn’t matter to me.

To overthrow the Federal government by force will entail the use of extrajudicial violence, death, mayhem.

False. This is where your argument breaks down.

War is not extrajudicial. But before we get to that point, there is a demand on the part of the people to arrest and try the offender for whatever crimes have been committed against the people.

You have agreed that this is not legal, but murder by another name. I happen to agree with you.

You are speaking of covert conspiracy, and I am speaking of overt demand for the following of our Constitution under the overt threat of overt action. How can we agree when we are talking about two different things?

If things keep going the way they have been, one of two things will happen. Americans will surrender their firearms and march peacefully into slavery, or the United States will break into civil war.

Now then, if we agree, it’s a concession (not a defeat!). That is how discussions progress.

We do not agree, and I make no such concession.

how can I be a liberal? (Watch that name-calling, Colonel!)

Your assertion that the government is, or should be, the be-all-end-all of authority makes you a liberal.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

I was only reflecting on an argument, which I have seen here and in other threads, that among the intents of the 2nd Amendment is the assurance that an armed citizenry may choose to overthrow an oppressive government, by arms if necessary.[/quote]
True.

You yourself have just argued against the monopoly on violence that law enforcement officers may hold.

True.

There are self-designated militia who agree with this and “prepare” for that eventuality.

True.

I will avoid the use of the word conspiracy, if you like.

Doesn’t matter to me.

To overthrow the Federal government by force will entail the use of extrajudicial violence, death, mayhem.

False. This is where your argument breaks down.

War is not extrajudicial. But before we get to that point, there is a demand on the part of the people to arrest and try the offender for whatever crimes have been committed against the people.

You have agreed that this is not legal, but murder by another name. I happen to agree with you.

You are speaking of covert conspiracy, and I am speaking of overt demand for the following of our Constitution under the overt threat of overt action. How can we agree when we are talking about two different things?

If things keep going the way they have been, one of two things will happen. Americans will surrender their firearms and march peacefully into slavery, or the United States will break into civil war.
[/quote]
Well, if this isn’t a threat of violence, what is?

[quote]

Now then, if we agree, it’s a concession (not a defeat!). That is how discussions progress.

We do not agree, and I make no such concession.

how can I be a liberal? (Watch that name-calling, Colonel!)

Your assertion that the government is, or should be, the be-all-end-all of authority makes you a liberal.[/quote]

Now where did I make that assertion? You have me mistaken with someone else. I like a lawful society; that is not the same as a government of Federal supremacy.

[smh23]

[quote]smh23 wrote:
I can’t believe I have to explain this, but here:

Free speech is to the First Amendment as gun OWNERSHIP is to the Second Amendment.

Now–just like the distributive property in algebra–we add and disseminate an abridgment to the equation.

An abridgment of free speech does to the First Amendment what an abridgment of gun OWNERSHIP does to the Second Amendment.

Brandenburg is an abridgment of free speech.

The rest follows from there.[/quote]

To continue where I left off on this post–

So, either you believe that a citizen should not face criminal charges after he, for example, shouts “fire” in a crowded room with the intention of inciting violence, thereby setting off a chain of events which killed an elderly woman

or

you believe that Constitutionally-protected rights can, in the name of public safety, be abridged in some of their manifestations.

Which, for the knives that might want to play dull, is not to say that you think it’s a good idea to further restrict arms ownership. Only that it could theoretically be Constitutional in exactly the same way that Brandenburg is.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Concession? What concession?

[/quote]

It was low blow on his part to put words into your mouth.

Don’t fall for it.

[/quote]

JP does not need a cheering section.
I am cheering him on…he just doesn’t know it yet.

[JayPierce]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Well, if this isn’t a threat of violence, what is?[/quote]
You said extrajudicial and murder. Neither of which apply. I, like tens of millions of my countrymen, am not opposed to aggression in the name of Liberty.

Sooner or later, despite what all the well-meaning nannies of this world would say, you have to understand that sometimes violence is the answer. Sometimes its necessary to open the fourth box.

Now where did I make that assertion? You have me mistaken with someone else. I like a lawful society; that is not the same as a government of Federal supremacy.

Do you believe that the police and military are the only people who should be trusted with firearms, or not?

And if not, then why have you been arguing toward that point?

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

Well, if this isn’t a threat of violence, what is?[/quote]
You said extrajudicial and murder. Neither of which apply. I, like tens of millions of my countrymen, am not opposed to aggression in the name of Liberty.
[/quote]
You are sure of yourself and of your world-view. In many situations, this is commendable. How sure must you be in order to commit aggression? Do you have a measure of discomfort that leads to a violent response?
I am old, and thus less sure of my world-view, but no less sure of myself. I have no such tripwires.

[quote]
Sooner or later, despite what all the well-meaning nannies of this world would say, you have to understand that sometimes violence is the answer. Sometimes its necessary to open the fourth box.

[/quote]Now where did I make that assertion? You have me mistaken with someone else. I like a lawful society; that is not the same as a government of Federal supremacy. [quote]
Do you believe that the police and military are the only people who should be trusted with firearms, or not?

And if not, then why have you been arguing toward that point?[/quote]

Oh, no, I do not believe that at all. I nowhere argued that. I think reasonable people should be reasonably armed, if they so choose, without interference.
I can live with the 2nd Amendment quite comfortably. What I find arguable is some of the more extrovert threats that claim justification in 2nd Amendment rights.

[SexMachine]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…I would not stand the interference of a self-appointed armed “militia” which would act lawlessly. There are all sorts of ways to adjudicate disputes–to “fix any problem” as you would have it–but a lawless armed and violent “select” militia is not among them.

[/quote]

Surely that would depend on the militia in question and the circumstances of its actions? In the history of mankind despotic regimes are the norm and democracies rare exceptions that inevivatably degenerate into mob rule then dictatorship. Do you concede that an unorganised militia need not be sanctioned by municipal, state or federal authorities to have constitutional legitimacy? Do you concede that and all that it entails?

You say you’d support ‘reasonable’ 2nd Amendment restrictions. Who decides what’s reasonable? A despotic ochlocracy veering headlong towards totalitarianism? The people? They can’t be trusted anymore. They’ve just looted the treasury and re-elected a crypto-Communist. You’ve got no where to go from here but down. Get used to it. Support for any 2nd Amendment restrictions would be an egregious error of judgement.

It is not to be thought of that the Flood

Of British freedom, which, to the open sea

Of the world’s praise, from dark antiquity

Hath flowed, ‘with pomp of waters, unwithstood,’

Roused though it be full often to a mood

Which spurns the check of salutary bands,

That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands

Should perish; and to evil and to good

Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung

Armoury of the invincible Knights of old:

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue

That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold

Which Milton held. In every thing we are sprung

Of Earth’s first blood, have titles manifold.

William Wordsworth

[JayPierce]

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You are sure of yourself and of your world-view. In many situations, this is commendable. How sure must you be in order to commit aggression? Do you have a measure of discomfort that leads to a violent response?
I am old, and thus less sure of my world-view, but no less sure of myself. I have no such tripwires.[/quote]
How sure must I be? Sure that my people’s doors are being kicked in and their children dragged down the hallway with a gun to their heads, and damn sure I’m not going to give up our only means of keeping that evil at bay.

Sure that every single time in world history that a free people have been disarmed, it led to slavery and tyranny.

Sure that even if it wouldn’t result in war, I would still refuse to give up my means of defending my family against armed criminals.

My family has fought for this country from the revolutionary war until now, and I’ll be damned if I’m the one to drop that ball.

[quote]Oh, no, I do not believe that at all. I nowhere argued that. I think reasonable people should be reasonably armed, if they so choose, without interference.
I can live with the 2nd Amendment quite comfortably. What I find arguable is some of the more extrovert threats that claim justification in 2nd Amendment rights.[/quote]
You mean claims like these?

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
~Thomas Jefferson~

The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.
~Thomas Paine~

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined
~Patrick Henry~

[JayPierce]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

You say you’d support ‘reasonable’ 2nd Amendment restrictions. Who decides what’s reasonable? A despotic ochlocracy veering headlong towards totalitarianism? The people? They can’t be trusted anymore. They’ve just looted the treasury and re-elected a crypto-Communist. You’ve got no where to go from here but down. Get used to it. Support for any 2nd Amendment restrictions would be an egregious error of judgement.
[/quote]
Hear, hear.

Except I would argue that the people did not re-elect him. It’s pretty tough to beat a 110% voter turnout in blue districts, and 100% blue vote in the stations where the minority officials were physically thrown out.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]SexMachine wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:

…I would not stand the interference of a self-appointed armed “militia” which would act lawlessly. There are all sorts of ways to adjudicate disputes–to “fix any problem” as you would have it–but a lawless armed and violent “select” militia is not among them.

[/quote]

Surely that would depend on the militia in question and the circumstances of its actions? In the history of mankind despotic regimes are the norm and democracies rare exceptions that inevivatably degenerate into mob rule then dictatorship. Do you concede that an unorganised militia need not be sanctioned by municipal, state or federal authorities to have constitutional legitimacy? Do you concede that and all that it entails?

You say you’d support ‘reasonable’ 2nd Amendment restrictions. Who decides what’s reasonable? A despotic ochlocracy veering headlong towards totalitarianism? The people? They can’t be trusted anymore. They’ve just looted the treasury and re-elected a crypto-Communist. You’ve got no where to go from here but down. Get used to it. Support for any 2nd Amendment restrictions would be an egregious error of judgement.

It is not to be thought of that the Flood

Of British freedom, which, to the open sea

Of the world’s praise, from dark antiquity

Hath flowed, ‘with pomp of waters, unwithstood,’

Roused though it be full often to a mood

Which spurns the check of salutary bands,

That this most famous Stream in bogs and sands

Should perish; and to evil and to good

Be lost for ever. In our halls is hung

Armoury of the invincible Knights of old:

We must be free or die, who speak the tongue

That Shakespeare spake; the faith and morals hold

Which Milton held. In every thing we are sprung

Of Earth’s first blood, have titles manifold.

William Wordsworth[/quote]

Perhaps I should introduce Mr. Wordsworth to the Blackstone Rangers.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:

[quote]DrSkeptix wrote:
You are sure of yourself and of your world-view. In many situations, this is commendable. How sure must you be in order to commit aggression? Do you have a measure of discomfort that leads to a violent response?
I am old, and thus less sure of my world-view, but no less sure of myself. I have no such tripwires.[/quote]
How sure must I be? Sure that my people’s doors are being kicked in and their children dragged down the hallway with a gun to their heads, and damn sure I’m not going to give up our only means of keeping that evil at bay.

Sure that every single time in world history that a free people have been disarmed, it led to slavery and tyranny.

Sure that even if it wouldn’t result in war, I would still refuse to give up my means of defending my family against armed criminals.

My family has fought for this country from the revolutionary war until now, and I’ll be damned if I’m the one to drop that ball.

[quote]Oh, no, I do not believe that at all. I nowhere argued that. I think reasonable people should be reasonably armed, if they so choose, without interference.
I can live with the 2nd Amendment quite comfortably. What I find arguable is some of the more extrovert threats that claim justification in 2nd Amendment rights.[/quote]
You mean claims like these?

Every citizen should be a soldier. This was the case with the Greeks and Romans, and must be that of every free state.
~Thomas Jefferson~

The duty of a patriot is to protect his country from its government.
~Thomas Paine~

Guard with jealous attention the public liberty. Suspect everyone who approaches that jewel. Unfortunately, nothing will preserve it but downright force. Whenever you give up that force, you are inevitably ruined
~Patrick Henry~[/quote]

More handy quotes.
How about a little history to match.
Like, when Jefferson --who never held a musket against the enemy–was called upon to organize a militia–he RAN. Ran like the wind.

[JayPierce]

Well, since you believe that a man’s opponent in an argument has the right to claim a concession on his part, and the best counterpoint you can muster is an off-the-wall, unreferenced claim that one of the Founders was a hypocrite, then should I take liberty of accepting your surrender?

[drunkpig]

[quote]Alpha F wrote:
There is a difference between a person being unable to see how a thing is possible, versus, it “cannot” be so, let alone as a definitive statement that needs no elaboration though no proof or really even evidence was provided in the first place.
[/quote]

So the use of absolutes is frowned upon in your presence. Noted.

So you have a theory on key word meaning, that you seem to think vital to the meaning and application of the Second Amendment, but no legal basis you can point to. That can make a legal argument unpersuasive, to those who need more than relying on personal opinion often coming more from emotion and desired outcome than from fact.

In point of fact - 44 of 50 states that support exactly what my contention has been from the beginning. There are no SCOTUS decisions on the subject because none have been brought before the court. Even gun-control advocates readily admit that the second amendment referred state militias and not the singular militia cited in USC 10-13.

[quote]Dissent opinions carry no legal weight as precedent or to prove meaning. You are relying on the losing argument.
[/quote]

I used one of the dissenting opinions from the most recent SCOTUS decision wrt the 2nd Amendment to illustrate that even the anti-gun side understands that it does not point to a singular militia, but the state militias.

[quote]Why don’t you tell us how your word parsing changes gun rights?
[/quote]

Show me where I ever said that it does. My argument in this thread has been solely over which militia the 2nd is referring to. I, along with 44 states and a few SCOTUS justices think it refers to the states. You say otherwise with no proof or support for your contention

Everything that comes after the second comma in the 2nd Amendment is far more important than anything before it. That is without question.

[quote]And the USC defines militia as I and others here have been saying, not as you say.
[/quote]

The USC describes The Militia Of The United States. The second Amendment is referring to state militias.

[quote]I would have spoken more precisely though in saying that you mis-paraphrased rather than misquoted, though mis-paraphrased is not a word. What you wrote was:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

“Well regulated” refers to the working order of a militia. A state militia. THEIR right to keep and bear arms that are functional and well maintained shall not be infringed.
[/quote]

While what the Constitution actually reads is, “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”
[/quote]

That was a poor choice of words on my part, and I apologize for that. I should have been more accurate and careful. What I meant was the first half of the amendment is referring to the State militias. The second half of the amendment is all about the individual.

[drunkpig]

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]drunkpig wrote:

My point was that the unorganized portion of The militia of the United States, simply by definition of unorganized, cannot be what the 2nd Amendment is referring to in it’s first four words. I hope that clears it up for you.

[/quote]

Bullshit.

You don’t know your history. Not even your straight history (TB can help you with that, I think cough).[/quote]

My knowledge of history, linear or otherwise is just fine. Other than proving you can correctly spell an expletive - what is your point?

If you want to get into a full blown discussion specifically regarding the Heller decision and how wrong some of Scalia’s opinion was that will be fine by me.

[quote]Tell us all about it. Let’s see you put a blister on Scalia’s butt.

I’ll wait.
[/quote]

Who said anything about blistering Scalia’s butt? I’m not sure you understand how a discussion works, so get back to me when you do.

[JayPierce]

They’re resorting to arguing about your argumentative method, Push. In their native liberal-speak, that’s an admission of defeat.

I’m sure you already knew that. Just trying to let them know that the rest of us know it, too.

[DrSkeptix]

[quote]JayPierce wrote:
Well, since you believe that a man’s opponent in an argument has the right to claim a concession on his part, and the best counterpoint you can muster is an off-the-wall, unreferenced claim that one of the Founders was a hypocrite, then should I take liberty of accepting your surrender?[/quote]

I don’t have the time.

If you want to see the facts of Mr Jefferson’s escape, which he assiduously worked to disguise during his political career, see my previous referenced Ellis American Sphinx. I am frankly surprised that you do not know of this episode.

Oh well, it is part of life’s journey that one learns that one’s giants have feet of clay. At least, if the pen were mightier than the sword, Tom Paine suffered for beliefs, if not bullets. And Patrick Henry did follow his own resolution, but please note: he was an ardent Federalist and renounced the Virginia and Kentucky Resolutions.

JP, I have grown to understand your position and I respect it. With varying degrees of clarity, I have shown you mine: the Founding Fathers lived in a world where they were unrepresented, and had no reasonable judicial recourse for their grievances. The last recourse is rebellion and violence.
We live in a world with representation and judicial recourse; I wondered what tripwires would set off a rebellion by something called an “unorganized” militia. I do agree that one may arm oneself in defense; I don’t inherently trust self-appointed armed saviors, even if they claim to represent my fellow citizens.

Now, then, withdrawing from field of battle does not constitute surrender. I have said my piece. I have other pressing issues, among them a lad with a complex case of Ewing’s sarcoma. He will die or he might live (without a humerus and a lung), but i will try to bring him back to able-bodied status.
At which time I will inform him that he is part of the unorganized militia.