"The Iconic Man With a Gun Is a White Man"

Post your links to the latest news.

Moderators: admin, Inquisitor, ForumModerator, WebsiteContent

Message
Author
User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11073
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Re:

#26 Post by DispositionMatrix » Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:32 am


mrcee12 wrote:It is total NRA, i.e. National Russian Association, to say that candidates asking for restrictions on firearms are prohibitionist. Just because someone doesn't think you should have an 80 round magazine doesn't make them anti-second amendment. And the second amendment, unlike the first, comes with words of limitation, that "well-regulated" part that so many seem eager to leave out. If your stance is that any attempt to reasonably regulate guns is inimical, then you will bring on the world you so fear. There is a middle ground, just find it.
Several problems there. 1. "Well-regulated" most definitely is not 18th-century parlance for "limitation." The only people still spouting that falsehood are those committed using it as a justification for prohibiting firearms and/or firearm accesories as a means of controlling the behavior of people.

2. Candidates are trying to ban _rifles_. So "Just because someone doesn't think you should have an 80 round magazine" misrepresents their positions--and glaringly obviously. Also, they are in favor of banning magazines half or less than half the size you used in your example. Those 30- and 40-rounders are standard-capacity magazines for AR- and AK-pattern rifles respectively.

3. We have the inclusion of the 2nd Amendment as a restriction on government specifically to avoid being subject to whichever mob's definition of "to reasonably regulate guns" is carrying the day politically. So far all three branches of government have been happy to try to define it anyway. At the state level that is what people are witnessing in Virginia.

4. With regard to not accepting the candidates' definitions of "to reasonably regulate guns" resulting in a situation in which I "bring on the world" I "so fear," you have asserted their proposed prohibitions have _proven_ to be the solution to, I gather, some notable level of violence. That is a problem for you because the burden of proof is on he or she who asserts the positive. Good luck. Additionally, I can guarantee you are not the arbiter of what I might fear.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11073
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Re:

#27 Post by DispositionMatrix » Sat Jan 25, 2020 7:39 am


NegativeApproach wrote:
DispositionMatrix wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:52 am
NegativeApproach wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 8:45 am
If we have a progressive candidate, what efforts can we make to make sure they are pro-2nd amendment? If there is a moderate candidate, what efforts can we make to make sure they are pro-2nd amendment?
You _could_ reread that and erupt into laughter. Currently, there are no such candidates. Regardless of what excuses apologists might make, the existing ones have pledged fealty to the cause of firearm prohibition. Even the conservatives don't have a pro-RKBA candidate.
If you've given up before the battle has even begun, the fight is already lost.
The fight already is lost. But I would like to hold off this facet of the implementation of government's victory over the people for as long as possible.
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 12480
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re: Re:

#28 Post by lurker » Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:27 am

MayhemVI wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:08 am
mrcee12 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:16 pm
There is a middle ground, just find it.
+1
"shall not be infringed".
creepy stalker dude :hmm: aka lurch.

User avatar
eelj
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 15144
Joined: Sun Jan 10, 2010 9:49 pm
Location: Minnesota
Contact:

Re:

#29 Post by eelj » Sat Jan 25, 2020 11:36 am

I'm not sure where the middle ground might be on this issue. Once upon a time the argument was that the national guard was the well regulated militia, but that was found false in 1990 by SCOTUS.

So who is the well regulated militia? Did people speak the same basic language in the 18th century as we know it today?

User avatar
featureless
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 5148
Joined: Tue May 23, 2017 6:11 pm
Location: California
Contact:

Re: Re:

#30 Post by featureless » Sat Jan 25, 2020 12:08 pm

lurker wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 9:27 am
MayhemVI wrote:
Sat Jan 25, 2020 6:08 am
mrcee12 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:16 pm
There is a middle ground, just find it.
+1
"shall not be infringed".
"A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."

Well regulated relates to the militia, not the people. The right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed. Heller found that this does, indeed, mean the people have the right to keep and bear arms. Heller did say the right was not unlimited and subject to longstanding prohibitions (mentally ill, felons, restricted places). Heller also made it clear the categories of arms in common use for lawful purposes cannot be banned ("assault weapons" and standard capacity magazines meet that bar by miles being the most common modern firearms). McDonald incorporated the 2A against the states. Caetano applied the 2A to modern weapons.

Under this, the government cannot ban "assault weapons" or devices necessary for their function, standard capacity magazines, bullets, sights, etc. This is not about "common sense." This is about the original purpose of the Second Amendment, implied by the "militia" and "security of a free state." There is no middle ground there to be had. We can argue around the constitutionality of red flag laws, registration, background checks, etc. But bans of arms in common use for lawful purposes are not acceptable under the current legal understanding of the 2A. Unfortunately, we're waiting on lower activist courts to catch up to current law and/or SCOTUS to reaffirm this for the 4th fucking time. The media's desire to continually shit on gun owners doesn't help.

AndyH
Banned
Posts: 5250
Joined: Mon Feb 08, 2016 3:05 pm

The 2A is Not Defined by SCOTUS

#31 Post by AndyH » Sat Jan 25, 2020 1:42 pm

mrcee12 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:16 pm
It is total NRA, i.e. National Russian Association, to say that candidates asking for restrictions on firearms are prohibitionist. Just because someone doesn't think you should have an 80 round magazine doesn't make them anti-second amendment. And the second amendment, unlike the first, comes with words of limitation, that "well-regulated" part that so many seem eager to leave out. If your stance is that any attempt to reasonably regulate guns is inimical, then you will bring on the world you so fear. There is a middle ground, just find it.
Others have responded correctly, but you might like more background. I recommend starting in our 2A reading area: viewtopic.php?f=40&t=22897

Others have talked about Supreme court decisions like Heller. Those are nice, but are little more than more modern opinions on what has been in black and white since before our Constitution was published. In the 2A reading area you'll find a couple of recommendations for a couple of books that have published the Founder's writings as the 2A and the rest of the bill of rights were being crafted. Always go to the source docs if at all possible! The TL;DR remains as it has for a couple of hundred years: The Founders expected American's would ALWAYS have guns, the Founder's expected that national defense would be the logical extension of the defense of self and of family. The 2A has always been an individual right - that wasn't 'given' or 'declared' by any court. You appear to believe your position is correct, and that makes your middle ground suggestion meaningful to you. Unfortunately, it's clear that you're not talking about the actual 2A, but rather a shadow of some pseudo-right crafted from anti-gun propaganda.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11073
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Re:

#32 Post by DispositionMatrix » Sat Jan 25, 2020 2:00 pm

mrcee12 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:16 pm
There is a middle ground, just find it.
Government already found the "middle ground" and plowed it under the first time Jim Crow laws prohibiting former slaves and their descendants from possessing firearms were passed in the states. If that's not enough law for you, on the federal level the NFA of 1934 prohibited the purchase of an entire class of firearms without what at the time was a prohibitively expensive government stamp of approval that entailed registration--otherwise restricting the affected hardware to the domain of civil authorities and the military. Prior thereto, federally there had not been a concept of firearms for the those here to protect the rulers being differentiated from firearms for the ruled. This was a huge change in the interpretation of the relationship between the serfs and their betters in this country.
https://govtrackus.s3.amazonaws.com/leg ... Pg1236.pdf

ETA: The tonnage of prohibitive law stacked atop what was supposed to be our RKBA is difficult to overstate.
viewtopic.php?p=653718#p653718
sbɐɯ ʎʇıɔɐdɐɔ pɹɐpuɐʇs ɟo ןןnɟ ǝɟɐs
ɯɯ6 bdd ɹǝɥʇןɐʍ
13ʞ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ 1ɐ4ɯ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- ɯoɔos0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
"ǝuıqɹɐɔ ʇuǝɯǝɔɹoɟuǝ ʍɐן sʇןoɔ" dɯɐʇsןןoɹ --- 0269ǝן ʇןoɔ
(béɟ) 59-pɯɐ

User avatar
NegativeApproach
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Re:

#33 Post by NegativeApproach » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:02 am

mrcee12 wrote:
Fri Jan 24, 2020 9:16 pm
It is total NRA, i.e. National Russian Association, to say that candidates asking for restrictions on firearms are prohibitionist. Just because someone doesn't think you should have an 80 round magazine doesn't make them anti-second amendment. And the second amendment, unlike the first, comes with words of limitation, that "well-regulated" part that so many seem eager to leave out. If your stance is that any attempt to reasonably regulate guns is inimical, then you will bring on the world you so fear. There is a middle ground, just find it.
In the context of the 2nd amendment, the words "well-regulated" means in good working order.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Let's not do the Anti's work for them.

User avatar
YankeeTarheel
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 9794
Joined: Tue Aug 22, 2017 10:01 pm
Location: The Jughandle State
Contact:

Re: Re:

#34 Post by YankeeTarheel » Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 am

NegativeApproach wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:02 am

In the context of the 2nd amendment, the words "well-regulated" means in good working order.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Let's not do the Anti's work for them.
Hate to tell you this, but a militia "in proper working order", "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected" is PRECISELY the definition that those who want to take guns away use. By that definition, it's a trained and disciplined group, called out by the Governor, or the Congress, to fight off invaders, insurrections (both by White rebels and slaves), and maintain public order in crisis situations. Well-Regulated Militias have officers and discipline, just like the military and the National Guard.

In other words, you're arguing for a STRONGER prefatory clause than Scalia intended in Heller.
""If you can convince the lowest white man he's better than the best colored man, he won't notice you're picking his pocket. Hell, give him somebody to look down on, and he'll empty his pockets for you." -- LBJ

User avatar
CDFingers
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 19658
Joined: Fri Jun 29, 2012 4:09 pm
Location: Member LGC: norCal
Contact:

Re: Re:

#35 Post by CDFingers » Sun Jan 26, 2020 9:41 am

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 am
NegativeApproach wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:02 am

In the context of the 2nd amendment, the words "well-regulated" means in good working order.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Let's not do the Anti's work for them.
Hate to tell you this, but a militia "in proper working order", "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected" is PRECISELY the definition that those who want to take guns away use. By that definition, it's a trained and disciplined group, called out by the Governor, or the Congress, to fight off invaders, insurrections (both by White rebels and slaves), and maintain public order in crisis situations. Well-Regulated Militias have officers and discipline, just like the military and the National Guard.

In other words, you're arguing for a STRONGER prefatory clause than Scalia intended in Heller.
If The People aren't armed, there is no militia to call up.

CDFingers
ImageImage
As Stagger Lee lit a cigarette, she shot him in the balls.
Blew the smoke off her revolver, had him dragged to City Hall.

User avatar
lurker
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 12480
Joined: Sun Feb 09, 2014 11:00 pm
Location: spencer, nc.
Contact:

Re:

#36 Post by lurker » Sun Jan 26, 2020 10:28 am

i wrote a lengthy post and then decided i was being pedantic and deleted it. i am glad to see that you guys have covered that ground and more. thanks, y'all.
creepy stalker dude :hmm: aka lurch.

User avatar
DispositionMatrix
Carpal Tunnel
Posts: 11073
Joined: Thu Jan 03, 2013 5:12 pm
Location: SoNH
Contact:

Re: Re:

#37 Post by DispositionMatrix » Sun Jan 26, 2020 12:16 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 am
NegativeApproach wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:02 am

In the context of the 2nd amendment, the words "well-regulated" means in good working order.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Let's not do the Anti's work for them.
Hate to tell you this, but a militia "in proper working order", "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected" is PRECISELY the definition that those who want to take guns away use.
Sorry, but most of us are familiar with that vector of attack on the RKBA by now. To state it more accurately, that has been _a_ retort promoted by _some_ firearm prohibitionists as a retreat from their more typical "well-regulated"==restricted argument. That view has been championed by a few others as well; it's a weak argument, particularly since the "well-regulated militia," as stated, would not exist were "the people" not armed in the first place. To this day, though, the typical argument against the RKBA as individual right still is the one presented in post #19--that "well-regulated" is synonymous with the modern concept of "limitation" or regulation of firearms by government.
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 am
In other words, you're arguing for a STRONGER prefatory clause than Scalia intended in Heller.
Recognition of the correct meaning of "well-regulated" in no way strengthens the prefatory clause at the expense of the operative clause. But one could argue it highlighted the requirement for "the people" always to have been able to have possession of the same small arms as the standing military, and, if so inclined, one could further argue from the beginning "the people" periodically should have participated in some level of training collectively for some duration to meet the "well-regulated militia" criteria. That, of course, would exclude being sent off to fight in wars of adventure abroad, like the National Guard--a later concept--is today. Deployment of the National Guard in foreign conflicts was the brainchild of General Creighton Abrams.

User avatar
NegativeApproach
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 217
Joined: Tue Jul 10, 2018 1:22 pm
Contact:

Re: Re:

#38 Post by NegativeApproach » Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:31 pm

YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 am
NegativeApproach wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:02 am

In the context of the 2nd amendment, the words "well-regulated" means in good working order.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Let's not do the Anti's work for them.
Hate to tell you this, but a militia "in proper working order", "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected" is PRECISELY the definition that those who want to take guns away use. By that definition, it's a trained and disciplined group, called out by the Governor, or the Congress, to fight off invaders, insurrections (both by White rebels and slaves), and maintain public order in crisis situations. Well-Regulated Militias have officers and discipline, just like the military and the National Guard.

In other words, you're arguing for a STRONGER prefatory clause than Scalia intended in Heller.


Again, that's not what the term "well-regulated" means.

The militia was every white male of conscription age. I'd (obviously) argue that it now includes women and people of color. So basically, everyone 18 and older. Those are the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed.

User avatar
sikacz
Verified Member
Verified Member
Posts: 14184
Joined: Mon Jan 21, 2013 12:03 am
Location: LGC MEMBER: Houston
Contact:

Re: Re:

#39 Post by sikacz » Mon Jan 27, 2020 2:03 pm

NegativeApproach wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 1:31 pm
YankeeTarheel wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:40 am
NegativeApproach wrote:
Sun Jan 26, 2020 8:02 am

In the context of the 2nd amendment, the words "well-regulated" means in good working order.
The phrase "well-regulated" was in common use long before 1789, and remained so for a century thereafter. It referred to the property of something being in proper working order. Something that was well-regulated was calibrated correctly, functioning as expected. Establishing government oversight of the people's arms was not only not the intent in using the phrase in the 2nd amendment, it was precisely to render the government powerless to do so that the founders wrote it.
https://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm

Let's not do the Anti's work for them.
Hate to tell you this, but a militia "in proper working order", "calibrated correctly, functioning as expected" is PRECISELY the definition that those who want to take guns away use. By that definition, it's a trained and disciplined group, called out by the Governor, or the Congress, to fight off invaders, insurrections (both by White rebels and slaves), and maintain public order in crisis situations. Well-Regulated Militias have officers and discipline, just like the military and the National Guard.

In other words, you're arguing for a STRONGER prefatory clause than Scalia intended in Heller.


Again, that's not what the term "well-regulated" means.

The militia was every white male of conscription age. I'd (obviously) argue that it now includes women and people of color. So basically, everyone 18 and older. Those are the people whose right to bear arms shall not be infringed.
It means all the people, not just militia age. It’s an individual right. The age bracket is simply to define a limit to service, not a limit to a right.
ImageImage
"Resistance is futile. You will be assimilated!" Loquacious of many

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests