iwishiwascool Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Look, I'm not really even for banning any type of weapon that is currently accessible, but if you guys are going to construct your arguments based on the NRA's batshit crazy talking points you are going to lose moderates like me from your cause. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
1fast5gp Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Except when that government has Drones... and missiles, and fighter jets, and tanks. Do you legitimately believe that a rag tag group of gun owners can legitimately mount such a defense? Do ARs really make the battle symmetrical? It isn't the nineteenth century anymore. Question two, In a percentage 0-100: how far along are we on a path in which we have to "defend ourselves from a tyrannical government"? I don't think the US military exists to serve POTUS. Plus we don't live in a country with a totalitarian mindset. I don't believe many service men and women would take up arms against US citizens. If anything there will be Chaos and massive desertion in the US military. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Yeah, exactly. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2highpsi Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Do you legitimately believe that a rag tag group of gun owners can legitimately mount such a defense? Do ARs really make the battle symmetrical? It isn't the nineteenth century anymore. It goes a little deeper than that. The fact that the population is so well armed may or may not have already prevented tyranny. It could also be the reason why we were not invaded in WWII, and would not be invaded today. Government and invasions aside, ARs can still be useful. If the grid went down (lets just say from a really bad storm) and you had generators and supplies, you now need to protect what you have from looters. It is only a matter of time before looters come in packs, and come armed. I would think an AR may be beneficial in such a scenario. Best case is you never "Need" the guns. I hope I never need mine. But in the mean time, I enjoy shooting them and they double as an investment. If I needed cash really bad I could pretty much sell every firearm I own for more than I paid for it. The same can not be said for any of my other hobbies (cars, golf, sports memorabilia, video games, computers, etc.) Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjxlr8 Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Look, I'm not really even for banning any type of weapon that is currently accessible, but if you guys are going to construct your arguments based on the NRA's batshit crazy talking points you are going to lose moderates like me from your cause. What crazy talking points? Have you read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or The Constitution of the United States of America since grade school? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm really curious. I would recommend reading through the documents again if you haven't done so lately. They are surprisingly brief and to the point. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 What crazy talking points? Have you read the Declaration of Independence, the Bill of Rights, or The Constitution of the United States of America since grade school? I'm not being a smart ass, I'm really curious. I would recommend reading through the documents again if you haven't done so lately. They are surprisingly brief and to the point. Id recommend you review some of my previous political posts. If they were "surprisingly to the point" the SCOTUS would not reach split decisions (5-4) more than 22% of the time; let alone 3-6 or 2-7 decisions. The framers were deliberately and auspiciously ambiguous in their writing exactly because they recognized the reality of modernization. Even Constitutional fundamentalists and Prudentialists agree on that. US vs. Miller and Columbia vs. Heller will take you beyond you gradeschool intrepretation and your originalist perspective. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2011SVT Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 An interesting perspective: Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2011SVT Posted January 23, 2013 Report Share Posted January 23, 2013 Id recommend you review some of my previous political posts. If they were "surprisingly to the point" the SCOTUS would not reach split decisions (5-4) more than 22% of the time; let alone 3-6 or 2-7 decisions. The framers were deliberately and auspiciously ambiguous in their writing exactly because they recognized the reality of modernization. Even Constitutional fundamentalists and Prudentialists agree on that. US vs. Miller and Columbia vs. Heller will take you beyond you gradeschool intrepretation and your originalist perspective. Couldn't diasgree more. I believe the key elements of both of those cases affirmed an 'originalist' interpretation. Miller spoke to the types of arms the 2A covered - namely militia types arms and those in common use (the sawed off shotgun in question being neither so the conviction stood). Heller affirmed that the 2A was an individual right and that overly restrictive regulations which, in action, abrograted the 2A's purpose to provide an individual a means of self protection were null and void. These interpretations were consistent with both the language of the 2A and with the intent (history is replete with writings from the authors and signers of the Constitution that make their feelings and purposes for spelling out the natural right to self defense in our Bill of Rights.) I think positing the framers were ambiguous "exactly because they recognized the reality of modernization" isn't correct either. The Constitution is written in plain language and can be construed to mean exactly what it says and, as I pointed out previously, there is a wealth of contemporary writings to let you know what those guys were thinking when it was written. A clear process for amendment was provided to handle the future. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Both of those precedents are used by both sides to claim victory. Both establish grounds for limitation to the types of arms one can hold. The fact that the most literal passage in the constitution leads to SCOTUS decisions which both sides cite as enamoring their position is proof enough that the constitution is a living document. If you really believe that the framers did not intentionally create malleable you have plenty of good company from strict constructionists. You and Scalia can brunch sometime and discuss textualism and exactly how dead the Constitution is. The rest of us will continue on in our Judicial pragmatism understanding that words like "liberty" and "equal protection" were employed exactly because they could evolve with societal changes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
TTQ B4U Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Another example of how the gun is not at fault but rather the people are to blame. Still shaking my head as to how a 15yr old could be permitted access to a weapon period. Off to drive my wife's suburban assault vehicle.....aka a minivan which has the capability of killing hundreds with it's capacity to hold a shit ton of explosives. Perhaps I should lead the charge to ban such capacities in a single vehicle. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Off to drive my wife's suburban assault vehicle.....aka a minivan which has the capability of killing hundreds with it's capacity to hold a shit ton of explosives. Perhaps I should lead the charge to ban such capacities in a single vehicle. That's why I lock my minivan keys in a gun safe along with my pistol and hammers. Because all of these things are equally dangerous. Can't let my kids get a hold of them, you know. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
2011SVT Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 Both of those precedents are used by both sides to claim victory. Both establish grounds for limitation to the types of arms one can hold. The fact that the most literal passage in the constitution leads to SCOTUS decisions which both sides cite as enamoring their position is proof enough that the constitution is a living document. It proves nothing of the sort. If anything, current direction especially in cases like Heller is leading us back to the "plain language with supporting contempory text" way of understanding what was meant. If you really believe that the framers did not intentionally create malleable you have plenty of good company from strict constructionists. You and Scalia can brunch sometime and discuss textualism and exactly how dead the Constitution is. So you believe the the framers wrote the Constitution so it could mean... anything? Really? So you're cool with the new 'low information' majority or 5 members of SCOTUS restricting your rights as a citizen (human being, really) at their whim? The rest of us will continue on in our Judicial pragmatism understanding that words like "liberty" and "equal protection" were employed exactly because they could evolve with societal changes. You mean your judicial activism. The words "liberty" and "equal protection" have not changed. They are bedrock principles and easily understood and not meant to be "malleable". What has changed over time is who those terms apply to as society has changed. Amazingly enough, the founders put a mechanism in for that called AMENDMENTS. If you'll take a look, you'll notice how those have mostly changed the nature of rights and liberty in this country in an expansive way and for the better. Which is the LEGAL way to change the Constitution vs. the illegal way that you are advocating where you and your "pragmatists" try to change what the meaning of the word "is" is (or in this case "shall not be infringed"). Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sol740 Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 The Bill of What Society Wants You To Have. Has a nice progressive ring to it. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jjjxlr8 Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 (edited) “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - unknown Patriot “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” -unknown Patriot “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” - unknown Patriot Edited January 24, 2013 by jjjxlr8 Corrected. thanks! :) What argument? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
greg1647545532 Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” - George Washington It hurts your argument when you repeat misattributed quotes. None of these are legit. http://www.guncite.com/gc2ndbog.html http://www.monticello.org/site/jefferson/when-governments-fear-people-there-libertyquotation Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
wagner Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 “When governments fear the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny. The strongest reason for the people to retain the right to keep and bear arms is, as a last resort, to protect themselves against tyranny in government.” - Thomas Jefferson “A free people ought not only to be armed and disciplined, but they should have sufficient arms and ammunition to maintain a status of independence from any who might attempt to abuse them, which would include their own government.” – George Washington “The very atmosphere of firearms anywhere and everywhere restrains evil interference – they deserve a place of honor with all that’s good.” - George Washington Oh those ideas and words don't apply anymore, just trust the .gov they know what they are doing. I mean, look how great of a job they did with our money situation, total pros at running things... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
iwishiwascool Posted January 24, 2013 Report Share Posted January 24, 2013 It proves nothing of the sort. If anything, current direction especially in cases like Heller is leading us back to the "plain language with supporting contempory text" way of understanding what was meant. So you believe the the framers wrote the Constitution so it could mean... anything? Really? So you're cool with the new 'low information' majority or 5 members of SCOTUS restricting your rights as a citizen (human being, really) at their whim? You mean your judicial activism. The words "liberty" and "equal protection" have not changed. They are bedrock principles and easily understood and not meant to be "malleable". What has changed over time is who those terms apply to as society has changed. Amazingly enough, the founders put a mechanism in for that called AMENDMENTS. If you'll take a look, you'll notice how those have mostly changed the nature of rights and liberty in this country in an expansive way and for the better. Which is the LEGAL way to change the Constitution vs. the illegal way that you are advocating where you and your "pragmatists" try to change what the meaning of the word "is" is (or in this case "shall not be infringed"). I like how glib you are, as if this argument isn't had in every constitutional law class ever. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.