Philadelphia Open Carry

Off Topic
262

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Okey doggone dokey, BG, now that we’ve agreed, at the very least tacitly, that folks like those from Philly cannot properly handle (be responsible with) their 2nd Amendment rights and therefore MUST succumb to an unconstitutional conversion of those rights to a privilege…which right is next?

  1. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

  2. Conditions for quarters of soldiers

  3. Right of search and seizure regulated

  4. Provisions concerning prosecution

  5. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

  6. Right to a trial by jury

  7. Excessive bail, cruel punishment [/quote]

Which of those, by granting them to anyone, has the literal power of death? Which of them are an instrument of danger? Do we not regulate dangerous chemicals and such? I know our government is quite paternalistic, but which of the above rights is tantamount to giving anyone the power of life and death?

To answer your question though, there can only be a "slippery slope’ if you equate the above rights with the “right” to bear arms. I don’t agree with that analysis. I said earlier, that you quite literally have the right own arms in any State - within your home. What is restricted is your ability to walk around in public with them.

None of the above rights are yours without restriction.

You do not have a right to libel or slander.

You already used the word “regulated” as respects search and seizure. Are the “rights” relative to search and seizure any less than those to bear arms, using your analysis?

You used the words “provisions” concerning prosecution. Continuing your analysis, we can have provisions for prosecution, but not for the bearing of arms?

Your “right” to speedy trial, witnesses, etc. is any area of law that continues to develop - hence it is “regulated”. Speedy trial rights are prescribed differently in different States, and they change too.

Your right to a trial by jury is a basic right, but has also been “regulated” by law as it concerns the number in the jury, jury selection, your number of preemptive strikes, etc. All the foregoing law develops and is hence “regulated”.

There is no black letter law concerning “excessive bail”, so again, it’s “regulated” by developing case law and opinion. Same with “cruelty”.

Your ball :slight_smile:

264

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

With all respect, the above is antiquated. You have no chance of resisting a tyrannical government today; you don’t even have a chance to seriously resist your local SWAT team. In the day of muskets and cannonballs, perhaps. Today, no.

[/quote]

With all respect, bullshit. It’s as pertinent as ever. Case in point - Iraq. Much, much lower gun numbers per capita and by total than the USA but boy howdy, did the United States military have its hands full over yonder or what? Our country provides an infinitely more complex and difficult situation in terms of a hypothetical rebellion against tyranny.

There are over 200 million guns spread out and in every nook and cranny of this land. It is sheer naivete to think the US military (even if enough of the personnel would mobilize against their brethren) would easily crush a legitimate rebellion.

[/quote]

According to the Washington Post 64% of US soldiers killed in Iraq were killed by IED’s. Therefore, in order to effectively “resist tyranny” it seems to me that the 2nd amendment would need to extend to explosives as well as firearms. Timothy McVeigh, for one, seemed to subscribe to this philosophy.

265

[quote]batman730 wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

With all respect, the above is antiquated. You have no chance of resisting a tyrannical government today; you don’t even have a chance to seriously resist your local SWAT team. In the day of muskets and cannonballs, perhaps. Today, no.

[/quote]

With all respect, bullshit. It’s as pertinent as ever. Case in point - Iraq. Much, much lower gun numbers per capita and by total than the USA but boy howdy, did the United States military have its hands full over yonder or what? Our country provides an infinitely more complex and difficult situation in terms of a hypothetical rebellion against tyranny.

There are over 200 million guns spread out and in every nook and cranny of this land. It is sheer naivete to think the US military (even if enough of the personnel would mobilize against their brethren) would easily crush a legitimate rebellion.

[/quote]

According to the Washington Post 64% of US soldiers killed in Iraq were killed by IED’s. Therefore, in order to effectively “resist tyranny” it seems to me that the 2nd amendment would need to extend to explosives as well as firearms. Timothy McVeigh, for one, seemed to subscribe to this philosophy.
[/quote]

LOL

266

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:
Okey doggone dokey, BG, now that we’ve agreed, at the very least tacitly, that folks like those from Philly cannot properly handle (be responsible with) their 2nd Amendment rights and therefore MUST succumb to an unconstitutional conversion of those rights to a privilege…which right is next?

  1. Freedom of Speech, Press, Religion and Petition

  2. Conditions for quarters of soldiers

  3. Right of search and seizure regulated

  4. Provisions concerning prosecution

  5. Right to a speedy trial, witnesses, etc.

  6. Right to a trial by jury

  7. Excessive bail, cruel punishment [/quote]

Which of those, by granting them to anyone, has the literal power of death? Which of them are an instrument of danger? Do we not regulate dangerous chemicals and such? I know our government is quite paternalistic, but which of the above rights is tantamount to giving anyone the power of life and death?

To answer your question though, there can only be a "slippery slope’ if you equate the above rights with the “right” to bear arms. I don’t agree with that analysis. I said earlier, that you quite literally have the right own arms in any State - within your home. What is restricted is your ability to walk around in public with them.

None of the above rights are yours without restriction.

You do not have a right to libel or slander.

You already used the word “regulated” as respects search and seizure. Are the “rights” relative to search and seizure any less than those to bear arms, using your analysis?

You used the words “provisions” concerning prosecution. Continuing your analysis, we can have provisions for prosecution, but not for the bearing of arms?

Your “right” to speedy trial, witnesses, etc. is any area of law that continues to develop - hence it is “regulated”. Speedy trial rights are prescribed differently in different States, and they change too.

Your right to a trial by jury is a basic right, but has also been “regulated” by law as it concerns the number in the jury, jury selection, your number of preemptive strikes, etc. All the foregoing law develops and is hence “regulated”.

There is no black letter law concerning “excessive bail”, so again, it’s “regulated” by developing case law and opinion. Same with “cruelty”.

Your ball :)[/quote]

Simple succinct answer: the right to “keep” means “own”. The right to “bear” means “carry”. “Bear” crushes your argument that the right is limited to “within your home.” It is beyond any credible interpretation to surmise that bearing arms means one is limited to walking around in your home with one on your belt or in your hands.

NOW if you WANT it to mean “within your home,” you have a completely constitutional provision that allows you to do so. It’s contained in Article V of the Constitution.[/quote]

Are you conceding that your earlier examples didn’t support your position and that your logic was refuted?

Do you have a Court case that supports your interpretation of “bear”? Because I understand that that phrase is the subject of dispute and contention. If it were not, all States would be at least CCP. Therefore, it is not “beyond any credible interpretation” as you have stated and, in fact, has been and continues to be the subject of interpretation.

Which brings me to my next point; exactly what is it you’re arguing for? Because you haven’t exactly stated it within this thread, except tangentially and as an ideal. What is the practical application of this right in our modern day? Please illustrate it for me. Are you arguing for the absolute access to bear arms by anyone? You have already stated you are in favor of some restrictions. However, the moment there is ANY restriction, it becomes more a “privilege” and less a “right”.

And by the way, I just had an encounter with LEO during a traffic stop, lest you guys think I’m soft on LEO. First question asshole asks me is where I’m coming from. Asshole was not happy when I informed him I had no obligation to tell him where I was coming from or where I was going, which I did politely. His reply? “Oh, so you’re hindering my investigation”? My reply? “Get your Supervisor please”. Supervisor comes, after making me exit the car, and some banter, wants to know if I’m a lawyer to which I reply I know the law. He tells me he knows the law better. I tell them we’re going in circles, write your tickets, make your charge and let’s move on. Asshole Supervisor tells Asshole Patrolman to “hammer” me. Asshole Patrolman returns later with ticket for headlight, which I was going to get whether anyway. That “hammer” couldn’t kill a fly in a fruit fight.

Why didn’t I tell dickhead where I was coming from? Because I’m pretty fucking particular about any infringement on my rights believe it or not. Could everything have gone smoother had I not “cooperated” and let him violate my rights? Yes. Maybe I don’t get the ticket, but I likely get it anyway.

Sorry for the digression. Please continue the discussion and help me understand where your argument ultimately leads, beyond an ideal concept. By the way Push, I will be applying for a CCP in NJ. I will likely be denied, and I will appeal and take it to Court. I’m going to be very happy to use all your arguments. I’m not hopeful, but I’ll fight the good fight.

U.S. Supreme Court ruled in District of Columbia v. Heller (2008), No. 07-290, that “[t]he Second Amendment protects an individual right to possess a firearm unconnected with service in a militia, and to use that arm for traditionally lawful purposes, such as self-defense within the home.”[35]

“within the home”, for emphasis :slight_smile:

269

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…such as self-defense within the home."[35]

“within the home”, for emphasis :)[/quote]

“Such as” means exactly that - such as. It gives an example. That language is not exclusionary to carrying beyond the home.

One more thing, I have expressed this before and doubtless will have to do it again: what the USSC decides in regards to a myriad of issues ebbs and flows with the times. It certainly decides what is legal but does NOT necessarily decide what is “right” or “wrong” or even constitutional. It is a group of men and women that often makes mistakes in their job just like you or me or the plumber down the road. Bottom line is Heller certainly is a step in the right direction but not infallibly spot-on.

And for you to bandy about this idea, or at least imply, in a discussion like this one that the USSC can do no wrong is simply ludicrous. Legislating from the bench is a serious problem and has been for a century or more. It happens at all judicial levels and the USSC is certainly not pristine in that regard.

So next time you want to whip out your United States Supreme Court banner and wave it like a Islamic jihadist screaming Allahu Akbar go to the black man in 1857 (or 1957 or 2011 for that matter) and ask him what he thinks of the supreme Supreme Court in regards to the totally awesome USSC Dred Scott decision.[/quote]

Why the strawman? And why the vitriol?

You still have not addressed my basic questions to you. And, you might want to revisit my other comments about the other rights you compared the 2nd to. The point is, there is an ideal, and then there are practical problems about how those rights are exercised in a complex society. USSC does that - I didn’t say it was perfect.

I “whipped” out a court case to illustrate that your alleged air-tight definition “to bear” is very much in dispute. The Islamic imagery was entirely unnecessary. WTF

270

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Do you have a Court case that supports your interpretation of “bear”? Because I understand that that phrase is the subject of dispute and contention…[/quote]

Of course it’s a subject of dispute and contention - for many of the reasons I’ve brought up here. The “the Constitution is a fluid document” crowd and those (like you?) who desperately want the 2nd to mean something other than what it says know they would have a overwhelmingly daunting task to repeal the 2nd so they gladly settle for legislating from the bench and disputing and contending something so simple as the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Frankly, a law degree, while certainly an advantage to ascertaining all of what I claim is current silly legal wrangling, is not a requisite for understanding what the 2nd means. A man who know his HISTORY as much or rather even more than his law is actually more qualified to “help” you on this subject, BG.

If one doesn’t have any fookin idea what Madison, et al, meant when they penned those words in 1788 and so strictly relies on what Brennan, et al, have to say (legislate) about it then it’s relatively easy to slide down that slippery slope to the “Land of C’mon Man It’s Got to Be a Privilege.”[/quote]

While you build strawmen out of my earnest and thoughtful questions to you (which you do not address directly, or just completely ignore), you stubbornly hold onto this ideal, without actually explaining how it’s exercised in modern society.

As for my position, let’s revisit it again. I agree with you in spirit. However, I’m not sure you’re correct legally. And I’m not sure arming people without any process is the answer. And as I have stated prior (and you have ignored), once you have a “process” you’re on the slippery slope (your favorite :slight_smile: ) toward “privilege”. I certainly want the right to CCP (in NJ), which I intend to fight for. Even in a restrictive State like NJ though, I can still own and bear arms on my property.

271

By the way, in further response to your earlier “begging the question” comparing “rights” under the various Amendments under the Bill of Rights, I offer the following in further response:

“The Supreme Court has interpreted the “due process” clause of the Fourteenth Amendment as affording citizens protection from interference by the state with almost all of the rights listed in the first eight amendments. The exceptions are the right to bear arms in the Second Amendment, the Fifth Amendment guarantee of a grand jury in criminal prosecutions, and the right to a jury for a civil trial under the Seventh Amendment. The Fourteenth Amendment also guarantees the equal protection of the laws.”

I’m curious why you’re not as staunch on the apparent “loss” of rights under the 5th and 7th Amendments.

And I have a simple request. You’re too intelligent to rely on fallacious arguments. Please cease the strawmen, the hyperbole, begging the question, ad hominems (implied) and other fallacious argument forms. Let’s just discuss the topic factually if we intend to continue beating this up. For instance, it’s not helpful for you to reply to the above and imply that I think the SC is infallible, as you already have, because nowhere have I stated or even implied that they are. I think I’m pretty clear that as a modern society especially, we struggle with the meaning of various “rights” and what they mean as our society becomes more complex.

272

And just to illuminate the terrain for anyone following along, a good and unbiased place to at least understand the issue being argued here:

274

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…such as self-defense within the home."[35]

“within the home”, for emphasis :)[/quote]

“Such as” means exactly that - such as. It gives an example. That language is not exclusionary to carrying beyond the home.

One more thing, I have expressed this before and doubtless will have to do it again: what the USSC decides in regards to a myriad of issues ebbs and flows with the times. It certainly decides what is legal but does NOT necessarily decide what is “right” or “wrong” or even constitutional. It is a group of men and women that often makes mistakes in their job just like you or me or the plumber down the road. Bottom line is Heller certainly is a step in the right direction but not infallibly spot-on.

And for you to bandy about this idea, or at least imply, in a discussion like this one that the USSC can do no wrong is simply ludicrous. Legislating from the bench is a serious problem and has been for a century or more. It happens at all judicial levels and the USSC is certainly not pristine in that regard.

So next time you want to whip out your United States Supreme Court banner and wave it like a Islamic jihadist screaming Allahu Akbar go to the black man in 1857 (or 1957 or 2011 for that matter) and ask him what he thinks of the supreme Supreme Court in regards to the totally awesome USSC Dred Scott decision.[/quote]

Why the strawman? And why the vitriol?

You still have not addressed my basic questions to you. And, you might want to revisit my other comments about the other rights you compared the 2nd to. The point is, there is an ideal, and then there are practical problems about how those rights are exercised in a complex society. USSC does that - I didn’t say it was perfect.

I “whipped” out a court case to illustrate that your alleged air-tight definition “to bear” is very much in dispute. The Islamic imagery was entirely unnecessary. WTF[/quote]

No strawman. No vitriol.

Islamic thing wasn’t necessarily directed at you but at the populace at large that more or less worships the nine gods of the USSC.[/quote]

Thank you.

But like I’ve been saying, I agree with and share your ideals. But tell me how society provides these rights, or more accurately, refrains from infringing upon these rights while still acknowledging the complexities of our modern society?

Do we let anyone get guns? And if we don’t, how does that now then not become a “privilege” and therefore on its merry way down that slippery slope you refer to? I ask you this because although we may disagree on the details, we both have agreed that the 2nd Amendment need be regulated in some manner. My position is that any regulation whatsoever renders it a “privilege”. If it’s a privilege, and subject to any regulation, what we are left with is no bright line test to say a right has been infringed upon. What we are left with is what we have today - individual States regulating things like CCP for instance, among other regulations and the SC occasionally weighing in when it sees fit.

The only tenable solution I see consistent with your ideals, is to allow everyone, with no restriction, to purchase and carry guns, until they constructively do something to forfeit that right. Is that what you advocate? Because I assure you, although that may work in locales like Montana and elsewhere, that social experiment would fail miserably in other locales.

277

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Do you have a Court case that supports your interpretation of “bear”? Because I understand that that phrase is the subject of dispute and contention…[/quote]

Of course it’s a subject of dispute and contention - for many of the reasons I’ve brought up here. The “the Constitution is a fluid document” crowd and those (like you?) who desperately want the 2nd to mean something other than what it says know they would have a overwhelmingly daunting task to repeal the 2nd so they gladly settle for legislating from the bench and disputing and contending something so simple as the “the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.”

Frankly, a law degree, while certainly an advantage to ascertaining all of what I claim is current silly legal wrangling, is not a requisite for understanding what the 2nd means. A man who know his HISTORY as much or rather even more than his law is actually more qualified to “help” you on this subject, BG.

If one doesn’t have any fookin idea what Madison, et al, meant when they penned those words in 1788 and so strictly relies on what Brennan, et al, have to say (legislate) about it then it’s relatively easy to slide down that slippery slope to the “Land of C’mon Man It’s Got to Be a Privilege.”[/quote]

While you build strawmen out of my earnest and thoughtful questions to you (which you do not address directly, or just completely ignore), you stubbornly hold onto this ideal, without actually explaining how it’s exercised in modern society.

As for my position, let’s revisit it again. I agree with you in spirit. However, I’m not sure you’re correct legally. And I’m not sure arming people without any process is the answer. And as I have stated prior (and you have ignored), once you have a “process” you’re on the slippery slope (your favorite :slight_smile: ) toward “privilege”. I certainly want the right to CCP (in NJ), which I intend to fight for. Even in a restrictive State like NJ though, I can still own and bear arms on my property. [/quote]

I cannot even remotely understand why you don’t think I’ve addressed your questions.

“This ideal” should be the same in this modern society as it has in past ones. I’d be going over ground I’ve already covered if I responded again.

I certainly cannot understand why you just ^ called CCP a “right” after repeatedly trying to make a case that it is a privilege.

Ultimately, as I stated before, the inalienable “right to keep and bear” was one that was recognized for reasons well beyond personal self defense in one’s home (or on the street). It is a tool carefully placed in our collective toolbox for the general populace to resist a tyrannical government.

There are CCP states nationwide now and nowhere has it resulted in increased violence. Everywhere it is prolific crime rates have actually fallen.

There are open carry states nationwide now and nowhere has it resulted in increased violence also.

As far as me being “correct legally” I addressed that several times as well. I may very well not be “correct legally” under the current crop of legislated judicial decisions but I am convinced I am correct constitutionally. [/quote]

I think I have again asked my question of you in the post preceding this. You are not answering my direct question about what you propose concerning the regulation of the right to bear arms. Read my preceding post (to this one) and answer that specifically if you will please.

To say there are open carry States that have not resulted in the increase of violence I think is a bit disingenuous. The restrictions usually work in reverse. There was a right to CCP, and then it was regulated. I know of no case where there was restriction, in our modern era, where the right was restricted followed by a relaxation of those restrictions. And I know of no example of this happening in the our cities, which is my major concern about such a law. I really do not have a problem with CCP for most residents of most locales. I do have reservations about it it in our cities. As I have stated before, Philadelphia is CCP (and OCP) and we have epic gun violence. Is there a study that shows CCP in Philadelphia has reduced crime?

And what type of violence are you referring to? Break-ins? I’ll concede burglars don’t break into homes in locales where everyone is known for having guns. I agree that deters such crime. But show me where individual (not homestead) violent crime has dropped. And do you have an example of such a drop occurring in a major city?

280

[quote]pushharder wrote:

[quote]TheBodyGuard wrote:

…Do we let anyone get guns?..

[/quote]

STOP right there! The use of the verb “let” instantly reveals your prejudices!

You CAN’T “let” someone have an inalienable right. Letting one have a right implies “not letting” might be permissible. A person has an inalienable right whether or not a government “let’s” him have one.

THERE IS NOT LETTING.

I know I keep beating this drum of looking at the other rights and comparing them but for crying out loud can you imagine anyone talking about “letting” someone have the freedom of speech?[/quote]

You’re arguing semantics now and ignoring my direct question. C’mon Push.