If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(Think Progress)   Justice Scalia: "The right of a 16-year old to keep and bear rocket launchers shall not be infringed"   (thinkprogress.org) divider line 401
    More: Scary, Justice Antonin Scalia, originalisms, Chris Wallace, Fox News Sunday, Technological escalation, supreme court justices, second amendment  
•       •       •

5957 clicks; posted to Politics » on 29 Jul 2012 at 9:33 PM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



401 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-07-29 04:52:32 PM  
I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.
 
2012-07-29 05:03:23 PM  
Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?
 
2012-07-29 05:05:19 PM  
 
2012-07-29 05:09:19 PM  
Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!
 
2012-07-29 05:26:38 PM  

2wolves: Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!


hehe You won the thread.
 
2012-07-29 05:28:23 PM  
May they aim and fire them at you, Mr. Justice?
 
2012-07-29 05:29:36 PM  

2wolves: Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!


bwahah
 
2012-07-29 05:47:43 PM  

Happy Hours: If I had a rocket launcher, some son of a biatch would pay


That's why at least Canadians should have gun control
 
2012-07-29 05:48:05 PM  
A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"
 
2012-07-29 05:51:30 PM  

vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"


I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.
 
2012-07-29 06:00:19 PM  

mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.


This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"
 
2012-07-29 06:20:20 PM  

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


From your local National Guard Armory or nearest Army/Marines base.

Oh, you said legally? Well, I guess if Scalia can make this magic happen you can go here:

Just use your paypal account.
 
2012-07-29 06:40:03 PM  
Ladies and gentlemen, the rational gun position.
 
2012-07-29 06:47:28 PM  

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


The permit fees are murder.
 
2012-07-29 06:54:16 PM  

Marcus Aurelius: Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?

The permit fees are murder.


Tax stamps for a Law rocket launcher aren't that outrageous, the background check on the other hand....
 
2012-07-29 07:04:40 PM  

mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.


We need NNS!
 
2012-07-29 07:29:22 PM  
It seems what he said was that the original intent of the restriction to handheld/carryable arms has to be looked at again because we now have the capability for handheld/carryable weapons with the kind of destructive capabilities that we wanted restricted, i.e. rocket/grenade launchers .
 
2012-07-29 07:32:05 PM  

2wolves: Looks like my Uzis for Toddlers charity is back on track!


images.wikia.com

Simpson! It's Toys for Guns!
 
2012-07-29 07:52:47 PM  
I don't know who's worse, Scalia or Thomas.

Just as an aside, is it normal for sitting justices to appear on news programs like this?
 
wee
2012-07-29 08:10:35 PM  

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


It's the ammo that would be scarce. You'd need a Form 4 for each rocket...

Marcus Aurelius: The permit fees are murder.


There's no such thing as a "permit" for NFA items. You pay a tax for it to be transferred to you.
 
2012-07-29 08:20:01 PM  
Frankly, I'm in favor of anything that gives Americans more ability to kill each other.

/So vote Republican.
 
2012-07-29 08:25:47 PM  

mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.


I think we should mandate suitcase nukes.
 
2012-07-29 08:29:20 PM  
This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.
 
2012-07-29 08:37:51 PM  

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.


You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.
 
2012-07-29 08:40:17 PM  

Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"


Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?
 
2012-07-29 08:42:05 PM  
Back in 1996 in a speech at Catholic University, Scalia said that people "have the right to bear arms, not to drive them.".

He should really go back to his original intent.
 
2012-07-29 08:43:36 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?


I'm going to pull a Michigan and determine that your vote doesn't count.

The yay's have it.
Motion passed.
 
2012-07-29 08:45:24 PM  

Angry Drunk Bureaucrat: Back in 1996 in a speech at Catholic University, Scalia said that people "have the right to bear arms, not to drive them.".

He should really go back to his original intent.


He wasn't getting paid by the Koch brothers back then.
 
2012-07-29 08:46:47 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?


Aren't felons prevented from owning weapons? Then how has Congress not already restricted the privileged? For your argument to be logically consistent, Congress would have to make it illegal to deny weapons to felons, Federal or state level.
 
2012-07-29 09:28:34 PM  

WalkingCarpet: I don't know who's worse, Scalia or Thomas.

Just as an aside, is it normal for sitting justices to appear on news programs like this?


Thomas. There are times even Scalia isn't as conservative as Thomas.
 
2012-07-29 09:30:43 PM  

vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.


Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.
 
2012-07-29 09:37:05 PM  

PacManDreaming: vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.

Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.


Ah, the things one can learn watching "Pawn Stars."
 
2012-07-29 09:38:20 PM  

PacManDreaming: vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.

Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.


Yeah, I used to have an FFL and the approved list of weapons included 76mm howitzers.
 
2012-07-29 09:38:38 PM  
Americans killing Americans,Mexicans killing Mexicans.
I say let them be so that they can do it and when no one is left Canada will claim North America
 
2012-07-29 09:39:09 PM  

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


encrypted-tbn2.google.com

Kinda disproves you...

/oh wait? you said popular.
//nevermind then.
 
2012-07-29 09:39:25 PM  

PacManDreaming: vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.

Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars.


Well yeah. By the time you reloaded it the cops have either given you high speed lead poisoning or have zap your ass enough times to power the Delorean
 
2012-07-29 09:40:38 PM  
According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]


This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.
 
2012-07-29 09:42:04 PM  

vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.


What? You mean he is using his "originalism" to make up BS justifications for how he wants to rule in the first place? *boggle*
 
2012-07-29 09:42:30 PM  
When Scalia talks of the Founding Fathers he acts like they were all of one mind. The Constitution was a great compromise so I imagine the individual opinions of the signers would probably reflect a variety of opinions on most issues. Which Founding Fathers do we heed? Do we poll them perhaps through a national seance? And just who is a Founding father? If only those who wrote the Constitution then Jefferson is out. men like Thomas Paine had great influence but Paine was neither a signer of the Declaration of Independence or the Constitution. Personally I think Scalia takes his position because he knows it's a big cop-out; hiding behind the presumed thoughts of others long dead.
 
2012-07-29 09:44:01 PM  
Teacher: What do you want to be when you grow up Tommy?
American 5 year old: Jack Bauer
Teacher: That's nice dear. Oh, one second.
Teacher walks to principals office
Teacher: Get homeland security down here, we have another one
 
2012-07-29 09:44:06 PM  

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.


Wow! If that counts, then me losing my virginity to Black Cat in jr. high TOTALLY COUNTS!! WOOHOO!!!
 
2012-07-29 09:44:23 PM  

Corvus: According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.


But he says he doesn't make shiat up, so that makes it ok.
 
2012-07-29 09:44:27 PM  

SN1987a goes boom: /oh wait? you said popular.


Yeah. Although you could use Randian arguments vis a vis Bioshock and be coherent. You could also use them from Sword of Truth the TV series. They did a good job casting that one.
 
2012-07-29 09:46:22 PM  
Civilians can legally own explosive devices and automatic weapons but they are heavily regulated. Rocket launches, assuming we get a ruling saying they are legal to own, would almost certainly be regulated in the same way. Meaning, enthusiasts who have a lot of money will have them but they will be out of reach to most people including most criminals.
 
2012-07-29 09:47:36 PM  
1.bp.blogspot.com
 
2012-07-29 09:48:03 PM  

Nabb1: Ah, the things one can learn watching "Pawn Stars."


Nope, more like the things you can learn when one of your friends is a gun dealer and historical re-enactor.
 
2012-07-29 09:48:15 PM  
I have to admire Scalia. Anyone that can be so brazenly shameless while proudly mixing in the finer points of a prideful douchebag on a daily basis has to work at it. The amount of focus and self-discipline required is simply off the charts.

Shine on, you asshole.
 
2012-07-29 09:48:52 PM  
This fits with the current N.R.A.'s talking points: "The AK-47 is the musket of today" -- they say.

I get "original intent", i even respect it... it should be consistent.

but he and Thomas apply it in a completely inconsistent manner.

A musket is a musket -- the AK-47 is nothing close to it.

And a rocket launcher is a sophisticated cannon that is scaled down.
 
2012-07-29 09:49:42 PM  
And the Fark lib fascist brigade continues to demand that congress ignore the Constitution and further restrict individual freedoms. Just like they do every single farking day.

/nothing to see here. It's the same stupid shiat from this crowd every day.
 
2012-07-29 09:49:47 PM  

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.


"The ends justify the means" is a terrible way to determine legality.
 
2012-07-29 09:49:48 PM  
Think Progress? Distorting things as usual? I'm shocked, simply shocked.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun- c ontrol-legislation/
 
2012-07-29 09:50:10 PM  

elchip: Corvus: According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.

But he says he doesn't make shiat up, so that makes it ok.


You know what this is just like? It's the same thing as people who think they can communicate with the dead. I think he honestly believes he can figure out what the dead people wanted, but I just don't think that's what he is doing I think he thinks they all thought like him.

It's projection of his beliefs onto what he wants to believe that the original intent was and what makes it obvious that it comes from his beliefs is because of his back tracking once that something he doesn't like "hand held rocket launchers" is brought up and then he goes "Oh I need to read more into it (to come up with some BS reason to make that no count)". Instead of "Well I guess congress needs to amend the constitution to fix that." which should be his actual reaction if he truly believed the BS he said originally.
 
2012-07-29 09:50:11 PM  

odinsposse: Civilians can legally own explosive devices and automatic weapons but they are heavily regulated. Rocket launches, assuming we get a ruling saying they are legal to own, would almost certainly be regulated in the same way. Meaning, enthusiasts who have a lot of money will have them but they will be out of reach to most people including most criminals.


They should really remove the import ban on automatic weapons given all the hoops you have to jump through. It would go a long way towards returning those weapon's to prices to something resembling sanity.
 
2012-07-29 09:50:23 PM  

PacManDreaming: Nabb1: Ah, the things one can learn watching "Pawn Stars."

Nope, more like the things you can learn when one of your friends is a gun dealer and historical re-enactor.


I was really just joking. I knew that is was okay to own stuff like that, but I didn't know there was actually a cut-off date and anything made before it is of no interest to the government until they talked about it on "Pawn Stars."
 
2012-07-29 09:51:43 PM  
I wish there was some rule that could be used if analysis of their statements and writings proves that they have become senile.
 
2012-07-29 09:52:22 PM  

runwiz: Which Founding Fathers do we heed?


Ben Franklin.
 
2012-07-29 09:52:53 PM  

MeinRS6: And the Fark lib fascist brigade continues to demand that congress ignore the Constitution and further restrict individual freedoms. Just like they do every single farking day.

/nothing to see here. It's the same stupid shiat from this crowd every day.


Oh, stop complaining. These threads are hysterical. Some of people biatching the loudest are just parroting stuff they've read on the internet. They'll never sit on a bench or argue or brief one of these cases. Who cares? Chill out and enjoy.
 
2012-07-29 09:53:17 PM  

thatboyoverthere: Well yeah. By the time you reloaded it the cops have either given you high speed lead poisoning or have zap your ass enough times to power the Delorean


I guess, unless you have one of these loaded up.
 
2012-07-29 09:53:21 PM  
Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.
 
2012-07-29 09:54:02 PM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?


I understand that the part you quoted is from the First Amendment, not the Second. The part you want says "shall not be infringed."
 
2012-07-29 09:54:17 PM  
This basically what Scalia style "originalism" breaks down to.

media.onsugar.com
 
2012-07-29 09:55:07 PM  

Nabb1: I was really just joking. I knew that is was okay to own stuff like that, but I didn't know there was actually a cut-off date and anything made before it is of no interest to the government until they talked about it on "Pawn Stars."


Never seen it. Maybe I'll have to watch it someday.
 
2012-07-29 09:55:14 PM  

randomjsa: Think Progress? Distorting things as usual? I'm shocked, simply shocked.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2012/07/29/scalia-opens-door-for-gun- c ontrol-legislation/


Can you tell where the 2nd amendment makes this distinction about rocket launchers that Scalia seems to believe exists?
 
2012-07-29 09:55:20 PM  

MeinRS6: And the Fark lib fascist brigade continues to demand that congress ignore the Constitution and further restrict individual freedoms. Just like they do every single farking day.

/nothing to see here. It's the same stupid shiat from this crowd every day.



Now we know where Tatsuma stands.
 
2012-07-29 09:55:51 PM  

s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.


Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?
 
vpb [TotalFark]
2012-07-29 09:57:18 PM  

Triumph: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I think we should mandate suitcase nukes.


If someone in Aurora had had a suitcase nuke they could have taken out Sideshow Bob before he had a chance to kill more than one or two people.
 
2012-07-29 09:58:04 PM  

GAT_00: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?


Rights can be stripped through due process. This is not the argument you should hang your hopes on Mr. "self defense is murder"
 
2012-07-29 09:58:15 PM  
I'm sure many firearm companies would just LOVE to sell RPGs to citizens. Especially the CEOs of major corporations who are on thin ice as it is.
 
2012-07-29 09:58:52 PM  

Nabb1: Some of people biatching the loudest are just parroting stuff they've read on the internet. They'll never sit on a bench or argue or brief one of these cases.


You can say that again. They are dumb as shiat.

And I'm relaxing and having a good laugh.
 
2012-07-29 09:58:59 PM  
Jack Bauer is a founding father too
 
2012-07-29 09:59:16 PM  

s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

 
2012-07-29 09:59:44 PM  

GAT_00: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?


There is plenty of case law on why felons lose rights, if you are interested, look it up instead of asking people you think you are arguing with.
 
2012-07-29 10:00:48 PM  

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


It's still not something I want a Supreme Court Justice to use as justification.
 
2012-07-29 10:00:58 PM  

GAT_00: Ladies and gentlemen, the rational gun position.


Technically, he is correct... well, half correct.

You can own a rocket launcher and machine gun legally in the US. It will cost you tax stamp and background check, assuming you can find one for sale. Have lots and lots of money on hand, have a squeaky clean background, and be patient.
Could someone like James Holmes get one? Well, if the ATF didn't find a problem then yes.
Chances of that happening? Slim to none. Its a rare day when legal automatic weapons are used in a murder.
When the fopa went into place, there had only been two recent incidents.

Whats interesting I've never heard the "bear" argument bring brought up in that sense before.
The 2nd amendment also covers crew served weapons (like Cannons, Ma Deuces, artillery) which can't be carried by one person. No telling if they intended it to cover bombs, but it certainly covered owning enough powder to make one.

I suppose if you could find a suitcase nuke or an anti aircraft rocket on the market, this amendment would cover it.
...but its a pointless argument as things are. That kind of equipment is rarer than hens teeth and would be worth many times more as a collectors piece.
Its a lovely hypothetical argument to compare nukes with rifles, but since no one will ever make a nuke for personal sale then its all rather pointless.

/I also don't get the "well guns were less lethal back then" argument.
/In wars past, we were accustomed to losing thousands of people in a single day.
/People just didn't get hysterical about incidents like we do now.
 
2012-07-29 10:01:02 PM  

Fail in Human Form: GAT_00: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?

Rights can be stripped through due process. This is not the argument you should hang your hopes on Mr. "self defense is murder"


Well, if you're going to insist on the 'right to bear arms shall not be infringed' part, I'm going to ask you why you are OK with infringing on the right to bear arms. The amendment says nothing about allowing them to be stripped through due process. It is very straight up, WILL NOT be infringed.

So why are you dodging their infringement?
 
2012-07-29 10:01:52 PM  
Bye society. It was nice knowing you.
 
2012-07-29 10:01:59 PM  

MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.


You bolded part has nothing to offer my bolded part. Read it until you understand that X is not Y.
 
2012-07-29 10:02:24 PM  

s2s2s2: GAT_00: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?

There is plenty of case law on why felons lose rights, if you are interested, look it up instead of asking people you think you are arguing with.


See same response above.

way south: I suppose if you could find a suitcase nuke or an anti aircraft rocket on the market, this amendment would cover it.


And there's clearly nothing wrong with that at all.
 
2012-07-29 10:02:42 PM  

MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.


Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.
 
2012-07-29 10:04:45 PM  
Smallest acknowledged nuclear weapon. Not quite hand-held, but you know there must be secret ones that are smaller.
www.airforce-magazine.com
 
2012-07-29 10:06:06 PM  
are Militias even legal? There was one in Michigan but they all got arrested last year
 
2012-07-29 10:06:14 PM  

s2s2s2: MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

You bolded part has nothing to offer my bolded part. Read it until you understand that X is not Y.


So then why is it just recently how the 2nd amendment was interpreted changed. You believe for 200 years people got it wrong until just recently?
 
2012-07-29 10:06:41 PM  
I don't care what you people do as long as you don't do it on my lawn.
 
2012-07-29 10:07:27 PM  

GAT_00: See same response above.


"The People" =|= "Felons"
 
2012-07-29 10:07:37 PM  

GAT_00: Fail in Human Form: GAT_00: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?

Rights can be stripped through due process. This is not the argument you should hang your hopes on Mr. "self defense is murder"

Well, if you're going to insist on the 'right to bear arms shall not be infringed' part, I'm going to ask you why you are OK with infringing on the right to bear arms. The amendment says nothing about allowing them to be stripped through due process. It is very straight up, WILL NOT be infringed.

So why are you dodging their infringement?


I'm not dodging anything, fundamental rights cannot be restricted without due process. This is an absurd position, look up section 1 of the 14th amendment.
 
2012-07-29 10:08:08 PM  

Nabb1: MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.


No...it's "the security of a free state" we should be hanging our hats on, really.

Does anyone actually believe that if war came to our shores, these cretins would be "securing" our states? Or even their own state? Hell no. They'd be defending their own backyard and f*ck you if the Chinese were raping your daughters right next door. They'd be laughing and taking bets on how many she could pull.

The point of the "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means just that: That everyone was allowed to bear arms to protect their STATE, not their precious selves, and it would have been hard on your hypothetical volunteers to say "No, I think I'll stay home today" when war hit their borders. Today, giving the "people" the right to "bear arms" in the same way does not provide the home-grown army it used to, so your argument is equally invalid.
 
2012-07-29 10:09:01 PM  

Corvus: s2s2s2: MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

You bolded part has nothing to offer my bolded part. Read it until you understand that X is not Y.

So then why is it just recently how the 2nd amendment was interpreted changed. You believe for 200 years people got it wrong until just recently?


You mean like the recent surge in people leaving religious institutions?

But really, C. What are you on about?
 
2012-07-29 10:09:24 PM  

Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.


In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.
 
2012-07-29 10:11:25 PM  

Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.


Soshulislam!
 
2012-07-29 10:11:44 PM  

s2s2s2: Corvus: s2s2s2: MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

You bolded part has nothing to offer my bolded part. Read it until you understand that X is not Y.

So then why is it just recently how the 2nd amendment was interpreted changed. You believe for 200 years people got it wrong until just recently?

You mean like the recent surge in people leaving religious institutions?

But really, C. What are you on about?


Really? Your reply is. "shiat I can't answer so say something stupid".

It's only recently in 2010 these new "rights" of the 2nd amendment were created. So are you arguing that the courts were getting it wrong for 200 years? It's a pretty straight forward question.
 
2012-07-29 10:12:29 PM  

Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"


It is ridiculous that everyone is so up tight about the arms debate when cars kill more people every year than guns do in america. Are we going to try and ban cars? No. No one is going to do this. It is ridiculous.

I therefore say "yay" as long as suitcase nukes are only allowed to be used by those who have passed a multiple choice test showing they understand international laws regarding WMDs, have demonstrated that they are capable of detonating a suit case nuke safely to an instructor, have insurance covering any damage they may inadvertently cause with a suit case nuke, have their suit case nuke inspected yearly to ensure it is working as required by law, and carry paperwork demonstrating these requirements while in operation of a suit case nuke.

Anything else would be ridiculous.
 
2012-07-29 10:13:01 PM  

s2s2s2: Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.

Soshulislam!


Figures. You know nothing about US history or the US Constitution, you just want to make up BS you want to believe.
 
2012-07-29 10:13:23 PM  

GAT_00: s2s2s2: GAT_00: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?

There is plenty of case law on why felons lose rights, if you are interested, look it up instead of asking people you think you are arguing with.

See same response above.

way south: I suppose if you could find a suitcase nuke or an anti aircraft rocket on the market, this amendment would cover it.

And there's clearly nothing wrong with that at all.


Also the 5th amendment

/Can't believe I forgot that
 
2012-07-29 10:14:20 PM  

s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"


DERRRRRP!?!?
 
2012-07-29 10:14:50 PM  
200 years is an exaggeration. Read the DC v Heller dissent. I believe the crack down on gun rights started in the 30s. And they had it wrong.
 
2012-07-29 10:16:41 PM  

PacManDreaming: Actually, you can legally own muzzle loading cannons and mortars


Aren't all mortars muzzle loading

encrypted-tbn0.google.com
 
2012-07-29 10:16:44 PM  

doglover: runwiz: Which Founding Fathers do we heed?

Ben Franklin.


The Remissness of our People in Paying Taxes is highly blameable; the Unwillingness to pay them is still more so. I see, in some Resolutions of Town Meetings, a Remonstrance against giving Congress a Power to take, as they call it, the People's Money out of their Pockets, tho' only to pay the Interest and Principal of Debts duly contracted. They seem to mistake the Point. Money, justly due from the People, is their Creditors' Money, and no longer the Money of the People, who, if they withold it, should be compell'd to pay by some Law.

All Property, indeed, except the Savage's temporary Cabin, his Bow, his Matchcoat, and other little Acquisitions, absolutely necessary for his Subsistence, seems to me to be the Creature of public Convention. Hence the Public has the Right of Regulating Descents, and all other Conveyances of Property, and even of limiting the Quantity and the Uses of it. All the Property that is necessary to a Man, for the Conservation of the Individual and the Propagation of the Species, is his natural Right, which none can justly deprive him of: But all Property superfluous to such purposes is the Property of the Publick, who, by their Laws, have created it, and who may therefore by other Laws dispose of it, whenever the Welfare of the Publick shall demand such Disposition. He that does not like civil Society on these Terms, let him retire and live among Savages. He can have no right to the benefits of Society, who will not pay his Club towards the Support of it.
 
2012-07-29 10:16:59 PM  

Corvus: In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.


The problem is that your interpretation doesn't explain what shortcoming in the Constitution the 2nd Amendment was addressing. Article I section 8 already provided for the formation, arming, and calling up of militias.
 
2012-07-29 10:17:15 PM  

Corvus: s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"

DERRRRRP!?!?


About time you stated your argument honestly. You are the one of us that is believing what they want to believe, irrespective of truth.
 
2012-07-29 10:18:25 PM  

GAT_00: way south: I suppose if you could find a suitcase nuke or an anti aircraft rocket on the market, this amendment would cover it.

And there's clearly nothing wrong with that at all.


Why would it matter if its right or wrong?
You'd be debating a stupid talking point if the item in question isn't available or doesn't exist.

/I don't know about rockets, but People do own grenade launchers.
/Due to the lack of grenadier rampages, I'd suspect a new law just isn't worth writing.
/Unless you need a distraction from that whole "health care" and "creating jobs" thing.
 
2012-07-29 10:18:37 PM  
Actually, I'm pretty upset that Scalia turning liberal on this point (Roberts must've got to him somehow), since the way he's interpreting the worlds greatest amendment would deny me the right to own Airwolf or Blue Thunder.
 
2012-07-29 10:18:40 PM  

Corvus: It's only recently in 2010 these new "rights" of the 2nd amendment were created. So are you arguing that the courts were getting it wrong for 200 years? It's a pretty straight forward question.


That's not really true. The Court has actually been swinging between interpretations. It hasn't wildly oscillated, but it's not nearly the shift Citizens United was. Not even close.
 
2012-07-29 10:19:24 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Nabb1: MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

No...it's "the security of a free state" we should be hanging our hats on, really.

Does anyone actually believe that if war came to our shores, these cretins would be "securing" our states? Or even their own state? Hell no. They'd be defending their own backyard and f*ck you if the Chinese were raping your daughters right next door. They'd be laughing and taking bets on how many she could pull.

The point of the "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means just that: That everyone was allowed to bear arms to protect their STATE, not their precious selves, and it would have been hard on your hypothetical volunteers to say "No, I think I'll stay home today" when war hit their borders. Today, giving the "people" the right to "bear arms" in the same way does not provide the home-grown army it used to, so your argument is equally invalid.


No, not really. You'd be wrong on multiple counts. The militia weren't always protecting the state. They were often protecting their own villages, towns, and so forth. People on the frontier needed to own weapons for protection and often for feeding them. It wasn't just external threats they had to confront.
 
2012-07-29 10:20:06 PM  
I love that the argument for repealing the 2nd, is that we have an unconstitutional standing army. Wouldn't you rather have the militias, families of fallen veterans of foreign wars?
 
2012-07-29 10:20:11 PM  

Nem Wan: Smallest acknowledged nuclear weapon. Not quite hand-held, but you know there must be secret ones that are smaller.
[www.airforce-magazine.com image 300x240]


The Davy Crockett warhead was never deployed except under test conditions. The only time it was ever actually battle-tested was in war games fired from the so-called "atomic cannon."

The small suitcase-bomb nukes are so limited as to be worthless, except for irradiating a battlefield and killing your own troops if the wind is right. You'd get better results from a conventional 5000-lb bomb, really.
 
2012-07-29 10:20:29 PM  

Fail in Human Form: GAT_00: s2s2s2: GAT_00: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

Care to address the point above about limiting arms from felons?

There is plenty of case law on why felons lose rights, if you are interested, look it up instead of asking people you think you are arguing with.

See same response above.

way south: I suppose if you could find a suitcase nuke or an anti aircraft rocket on the market, this amendment would cover it.

And there's clearly nothing wrong with that at all.

Also the 5th amendment

/Can't believe I forgot that


Come on, now, the Bill of Rights isn't about individual liberties.
 
2012-07-29 10:22:10 PM  
Step 1) Loosen restrictions on heavy weaponry

Step 2) Wait for acts of domestic terror

Step 3) Crack down on populace and smuther remaining bits of freedom from this country
 
2012-07-29 10:22:30 PM  

Corvus: s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"

DERRRRRP!?!?


Actually, that kinda makes sense. Felons can't vote, for example. They're not "full citizens."

Oh, who am I kidding, it makes no sense.
 
2012-07-29 10:22:53 PM  

vygramul: Corvus: It's only recently in 2010 these new "rights" of the 2nd amendment were created. So are you arguing that the courts were getting it wrong for 200 years? It's a pretty straight forward question.

That's not really true. The Court has actually been swinging between interpretations. It hasn't wildly oscillated, but it's not nearly the shift Citizens United was. Not even close.


Which court case do you think I was referring to? I am actually talking about state gun laws.
 
2012-07-29 10:23:04 PM  

Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.


The Continental Army under General Washington was funded by the Continental Congress, and Congress is granted the right to raise an army and a navy. And they didn't "round up militias." They had to beg the militias to stick around and General Washington was constantly in fear during the lean months that he would wake up one morning and the militias would be gone. Washington could (and did) execute deserters from the Continental Army, but the militias were there on a volunteer basis. They weren't conscripted. And who the f*ck do you think Washington lead against the insurrection known as the Whiskey Rebellion?
 
2012-07-29 10:24:02 PM  

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.


I said it before with these hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenarios: if you are 100% sure you can save a bunch of lives by torturing information out of someone, by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect NOT to be prosecuted and punished for it. If you're that committed to something man up and accept the consequences. Making torture legal for these kinds of HIGHLY unlikely scenarios is asinine.
 
2012-07-29 10:24:17 PM  

s2s2s2: I love that the argument for repealing the 2nd, is that we have an unconstitutional standing army. Wouldn't you rather have the militias, families of fallen veterans of foreign wars?


No one is saying anything like that. You seem like to create a lot of BS that no one actually says.
 
2012-07-29 10:24:22 PM  

s2s2s2: Corvus: s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"

DERRRRRP!?!?

About time you stated your argument honestly. You are the one of us that is believing what they want to believe, irrespective of truth.


That was someone else responding to you. I don't have an alt, and do you really think I use other logins? Who else have you seen arguing the same position as me to be an alt?

As to the original, felons are included in the people. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts them from The People. This sudden blindness to gun restrictions is interesting, I don't know why I never tried this angle before. You clearly are dodging as hard as you can talking about how we openly restricts 2nd Amendment rights, and you don't have anything wrong with it, yet you scream about it in any other form. Interesting.

Fail in Human Form: I'm not dodging anything, fundamental rights cannot be restricted without due process. This is an absurd position, look up section 1 of the 14th amendment.


I don't see anything anywhere in the Constitution that says 2nd Amendment rights are allowed to be abridged under due process.
 
2012-07-29 10:24:32 PM  

Corvus: vygramul: Corvus: It's only recently in 2010 these new "rights" of the 2nd amendment were created. So are you arguing that the courts were getting it wrong for 200 years? It's a pretty straight forward question.

That's not really true. The Court has actually been swinging between interpretations. It hasn't wildly oscillated, but it's not nearly the shift Citizens United was. Not even close.

Which court case do you think I was referring to? I am actually talking about state gun laws.


State law interpretations of Constitutional amendments are somehow binding precedent on the Supreme Court. Holy shiat, you must be trolling.
 
2012-07-29 10:25:04 PM  

ChimpMitten: Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

It is ridiculous that everyone is so up tight about the arms debate when cars kill more people every year than guns do in america. Are we going to try and ban cars? No. No one is going to do this. It is ridiculous.

I therefore say "yay" as long as suitcase nukes are only allowed to be used by those who have passed a multiple choice test showing they understand international laws regarding WMDs, have demonstrated that they are capable of detonating a suit case nuke safely to an instructor, have insurance covering any damage they may inadvertently cause with a suit case nuke, have their suit case nuke inspected yearly to ensure it is working as required by law, and carry paperwork demonstrating these requirements while in operation of a suit case nuke.

Anything else would be ridiculous.


Woot.
Passing laws is easy.
 
2012-07-29 10:25:10 PM  

way south: /In wars past, we were accustomed to losing thousands of people in a single day.


According to this total US KIA in the revolutionary war was 8000, I believe that war lasted more than 8 days.
Link
 
2012-07-29 10:26:49 PM  
There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of a "well-regulated militia" armed with slow-to-load, hard-to-aim muskets to today's weapon technology.

While I don't think there is a reason to own rocket launchers, there is no way that the speed with shich the gums were loaded ever played a part in the Founding Fathers' decision. This is just an asinine argument.
 
2012-07-29 10:27:28 PM  

PonceAlyosha: Step 1) Loosen restrictions on heavy weaponry

Step 2) Wait for acts of domestic terror

Step 3) Crack down on populace and smuther remaining bits of freedom from this country


The conspiracy theorist in me wants to believe that is what the BATF already does.

/Release a bunch of guns to known straw purchasers.
/Remove known troublemakers from the watch list.
/Wait for incident.
/Claim you need more authority and bigger budget to fix it.
 
2012-07-29 10:27:32 PM  

Nabb1: Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.

The Continental Army under General Washington was funded by the Continental Congress, and Congress is granted the right to raise an army and a navy. And they didn't "round up militias." They had to beg the militias to stick around and General Washington was constantly in fear during the lean months that he would wake up one morning and the militias would be gone. Washington could (and did) execute deserters from the Continental Army, but the militias were there on a volunteer basis. They weren't conscripted. And who the f*ck do you think Washington lead against the insurrection known as the Whiskey Rebellion?


Wow never seen someone use the exact points I was making as showing I was wrong. But it's kind of funny.

You are saying the same thing I did for some dumbass reason you think rewording it some makes it completely different. Serious I think your trying to make some distinction that doesn't exist.

He did not have a standing army.
 
2012-07-29 10:27:45 PM  

spongeboob: way south: /In wars past, we were accustomed to losing thousands of people in a single day.

According to this total US KIA in the revolutionary war was 8000, I believe that war lasted more than 8 days.
Link


He said 'In wars past', not just the Revolution. The Civil War had a few pretty nasty days, to put it mildly.
 
2012-07-29 10:27:59 PM  
What's really pointless is that everyone agrees that there need to be reasonable restrictions on the ownership of firearms, we just nibble around the edges. We restrict the right to own fully automatic weapons to those willing to undergo background checks and the like. We restrict the ownership of guns to minors, the insane, and criminals. And most people have no problem with these restrictions. Even Scalia, whose decision in Heller was a completely tortured reasoning on why someone can own a semi- automatic hand-gun and yet not own a fully-automatic rifle knows that there are limits. Scalia is just groping blindly to find some justification for his preferences, but, really, given that at the time of the signing it was legal to own a ship decked out with as many cannons as the private owner wanted, he's grasping at straws. No one really supports the 2nd amendment as written and no one is really for complete gun rights. Which is a good thing. Now everyone is just trying to determine what restrictions make the most sense.
 
2012-07-29 10:27:59 PM  

Nabb1: People on the frontier needed to own weapons for protection


You steal land and kill the people living there someone just might get irked with you.
 
2012-07-29 10:28:45 PM  

GAT_00: s2s2s2: Corvus: s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"

DERRRRRP!?!?

About time you stated your argument honestly. You are the one of us that is believing what they want to believe, irrespective of truth.

That was someone else responding to you. I don't have an alt, and do you really think I use other logins? Who else have you seen arguing the same position as me to be an alt?

As to the original, felons are included in the people. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts them from The People. This sudden blindness to gun restrictions is interesting, I don't know why I never tried this angle before. You clearly are dodging as hard as you can talking about how we openly restricts 2nd Amendment rights, and you don't have anything wrong with it, yet you scream about it in any other form. Interesting.

Fail in Human Form: I'm not dodging anything, fundamental rights cannot be restricted without due process. This is an absurd position, look up section 1 of the 14th amendment.

I don't see anything anywhere in the Constitution that says 2nd Amendment rights are allowed to be abridged under due process.


I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?
 
2012-07-29 10:30:10 PM  

Nabb1: Corvus: vygramul: Corvus: It's only recently in 2010 these new "rights" of the 2nd amendment were created. So are you arguing that the courts were getting it wrong for 200 years? It's a pretty straight forward question.

That's not really true. The Court has actually been swinging between interpretations. It hasn't wildly oscillated, but it's not nearly the shift Citizens United was. Not even close.

Which court case do you think I was referring to? I am actually talking about state gun laws.

State law interpretations of Constitutional amendments are somehow binding precedent on the Supreme Court. Holy shiat, you must be trolling.


STATE LAW! Not the consitution idiot. You know states have gun laws? They have for a very long time.

Man is it stupid day or something.
 
2012-07-29 10:30:53 PM  

Mikey1969: There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of a "well-regulated militia" armed with slow-to-load, hard-to-aim muskets to today's weapon technology.

While I don't think there is a reason to own rocket launchers, there is no way that the speed with shich the gums were loaded ever played a part in the Founding Fathers' decision. This is just an asinine argument.


The same argument can be used to justify censorship of the Internet. There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of freedom of speech with slow to print pamphlets and simply yelling to today's mass media.
 
2012-07-29 10:31:57 PM  

Nabb1: Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.

The Continental Army under General Washington was funded by the Continental Congress, and Congress is granted the right to raise an army and a navy. And they didn't "round up militias." They had to beg the militias to stick around and General Washington was constantly in fear during the lean months that he would wake up one morning and the militias would be gone. Washington could (and did) execute deserters from the Continental Army, but the militias were there on a volunteer basis. They weren't conscripted. And who the f*ck do you think Washington lead against the insurrection known as the Whiskey Rebellion?



Umm this is what I meant:


Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to suppress the violence. With 15,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency. The rebels all went home before the arrival of the army, and there was no confrontation. About 20 men were arrested, but all were later acquitted or pardoned. The issue fueled support for the new opposition Democratic Republican Party, which repealed the tax when it came to power in Washington in 1801.


I would call that "rounding up the militias". Are you saying that didn't happen?
 
2012-07-29 10:32:16 PM  
GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?
 
2012-07-29 10:32:24 PM  

sendtodave: Corvus: s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"

DERRRRRP!?!?

Actually, that kinda makes sense. Felons can't vote, for example. They're not "full citizens."

Oh, who am I kidding, it makes no sense.


Yet it is a fact.
 
2012-07-29 10:33:25 PM  

Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?


Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.
 
2012-07-29 10:33:37 PM  
Scalia is perfectly sound in his reading of the constitution. If people don't like what the founders wrote, they can change the constitution rather than just ignoring it and not rewriting it to fit the times. But that would be hard. So, just biatch, people. It's what you are good at.
 
2012-07-29 10:34:14 PM  
Two-cans-and-a-string it in.
 
2012-07-29 10:34:17 PM  

Nabb1: Do you know


Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed."


Bollocks.

Alexander Hamilton, arguing against a national standing army:


A tolerable expertness in military movements is a business that requires time and practice. It is not a day, or even a week, that will suffice for the attainment of it. To oblige the great body of the yeomanry, and of the other classes of the citizens, to be under arms for the purpose of going through military exercises and evolutions, as often as might be necessary to acquire the degree of perfection which would entitle them to the character of a well-regulated militia, would be a real grievance to the people, and a serious public inconvenience and loss.
...
...

"But though the scheme of disciplining the whole nation must be abandoned as mischievous or impracticable; yet it is a matter of the utmost importance that a well-digested plan should, as soon as possible, be adopted for the proper establishment of the militia. The attention of the government ought particularly to be directed to the formation of a select corps of moderate extent, upon such principles as will really fit them for service in case of need. By thus circumscribing the plan, it will be possible to have an excellent body of well-trained militia, ready to take the field whenever the defense of the State shall require it. This will not only lessen the call for military establishments, but if circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist."


TL:DR

He was talking about a highly trained militia which had equivalent skills to a standing army., not that they've go shoes, uniforms and lots of guns.
 
2012-07-29 10:34:52 PM  

s2s2s2: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.


There is parole and probation. Once these are done, why keep punishing them? Cruel and unusual and such.
 
2012-07-29 10:35:05 PM  
I think that it is cool that the founding fathers were able to anticipate all the current technical developments in weaponry, so we should stick with the literal meaning of the Constitution.
 
2012-07-29 10:35:21 PM  

LordJiro: spongeboob: way south: /In wars past, we were accustomed to losing thousands of people in a single day.

According to this total US KIA in the revolutionary war was 8000, I believe that war lasted more than 8 days.
Link

He said 'In wars past', not just the Revolution. The Civil War had a few pretty nasty days, to put it mildly.


The Constitution was written after the revolutionary war and BEFORE the Civil War so the Revolutinary type warfare would be the frame of refrence for the people who wrote and approved of the constituion.
 
2012-07-29 10:36:01 PM  

GAT_00: s2s2s2: Corvus: s2s2s2: GAT_00: See same response above.

"The People" =|= "Felons"

DERRRRRP!?!?

About time you stated your argument honestly. You are the one of us that is believing what they want to believe, irrespective of truth.

That was someone else responding to you. I don't have an alt, and do you really think I use other logins? Who else have you seen arguing the same position as me to be an alt?

As to the original, felons are included in the people. There is nothing in the Constitution that restricts them from The People. This sudden blindness to gun restrictions is interesting, I don't know why I never tried this angle before. You clearly are dodging as hard as you can talking about how we openly restricts 2nd Amendment rights, and you don't have anything wrong with it, yet you scream about it in any other form. Interesting.

Fail in Human Form: I'm not dodging anything, fundamental rights cannot be restricted without due process. This is an absurd position, look up section 1 of the 14th amendment.

I don't see anything anywhere in the Constitution that says 2nd Amendment rights are allowed to be abridged under due process.


Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.
 
2012-07-29 10:36:42 PM  

Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?


Only two states actually automatically "permanently" disenfranchise their felons, and at least one of them allows the governor to restore those rights.
 
2012-07-29 10:36:57 PM  

vygramul: So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?


I could make up some nice story, but what it comes down to is whoever wrote the bill. It's completely mismatched across the board. I've never done any in depth searches on it, but I know the rules in one state have little relation to the next. But clearly, in the end, the 2nd is only borderline inviolate. It's just strange that the fervent NRA supporters on here can't see that connection. Of course, these are often the kind of people who think that minorities are most often the felons, so they don't really care.

But clearly, when looked at for felons, the 2nd is not inviolate at all. And there is nothing in the Constitution that says felons deserve to have all Constitutional or ANY Constitutional rights stripped from them. But to acknowledge this would irrevocably weaken their steadfast position, so I don't expect any to acknowledge it.

I'm thinking about the militia aspect too. Now, and this is partially speculation, but militias of the day often brought their own weapons. These were normal people, bringing hunting weapons and pistols out. You wouldn't own an Army smoothbore, what's the point? Can't hit shiat with it, that's why they used to line up - so the bullet could do something. You'd own a bored hunting rifle, and let's just assume a pistol. But you would be unlikely to have anything else. There may be smoothbores in a arsenal somewhere, but they weren't in private possession.

Applying that logic for today, and you still have hunting weapons and pistols. Army quality weapons, like semi-automatics and automatics? Not covered under the original intent. To stay EXACTLY true to the Founders intent, like a good 10ther would say, would be to interpret the 2nd to allow traditional militia weapons.
 
2012-07-29 10:37:21 PM  

Nabb1: The Continental Army under General Washington was funded by the Continental Congress, and Congress is granted the right to raise an army and a navy. And they didn't "round up militias."


What would you call this:

Washington responded by sending peace commissioners to western Pennsylvania to negotiate with the rebels, while at the same time calling on governors to send a militia force to suppress the violence. With 15,000 militia provided by the governors of Virginia, Maryland, New Jersey, and Pennsylvania, Washington rode at the head of an army to suppress the insurgency.

Sounds a lot like "rounding up militias" to me!!!

Psst by the way I NEVER SAID THE US COULDN'T"T HAVE AN ARMY (which is probably the next BS strawman you will try) I said it didn't have a standing army all the time like we do today and the founders were actually against the federal government having a standing army.
 
2012-07-29 10:37:29 PM  

Farker Soze: s2s2s2: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

There is parole and probation. Once these are done, why keep punishing them? Cruel and unusual and such.


Tell sex offenders that.
 
2012-07-29 10:37:56 PM  
Scalia is the worst. Just the worst. The Supreme Court's job is to decide if a previous courts ruling was correct. Scalia thinks his job is to be Cheney's butt-boy. He is political and he says it right out loud.

I don't wish death on any man, but if Anton was walking across the street and a truck came around the corner, I would not yell "Look Out!"
 
2012-07-29 10:38:07 PM  
FTFA: "Such originalism is a dangerous distortion of 21st-Century reality. There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of a "well-regulated militia" armed with slow-to-load, hard-to-aim muskets to today's weapon technology. Arguably, the full extent of alleged gunman James Holmes' munitions could have easily decimated an entire brigade of musketeers before they'd even loaded their first ball."

You're missing the point, cupcake. Back in 1776 the average Colonialist musket was every bit the match of the British Army's most up-to-date firearm. Colonialists who owed rifles (as opposed to muskets) were better armed than the British soldiers they faced. AND IT OFTEN SHOWED IN BATTLE.

FYI, the Founding Fathers intended that private persons be sufficiently well armed and equipped to fend off tyranny, including when it came from their own government. (Though I suspect we aren't going to see Scalia signing up to that.)

So in comparison to the situation facing the Founding Fathers, law abiding, mentally competent adults in this country should be able to "keep and bear" fully automatic military rifles, light machine guns and other hand-held arms.
 
2012-07-29 10:38:31 PM  

vygramul: The same argument can be used to justify censorship of the Internet. There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of freedom of speech with slow to print pamphlets and simply yelling to today's mass media.


Who said that I thought we should censor the internet? The only real censorship I support is stuff like slander/libel laws. I'm a little iffy on hate speech, even on publishing things like bomb plans. I DO think that cyber-bullying should be illegal though, but that's different than censorship, since you are harming someone.
 
2012-07-29 10:38:47 PM  

stenciledb: Scalia is perfectly sound in his reading of the constitution. If people don't like what the founders wrote, they can change the constitution rather than just ignoring it and not rewriting it to fit the times. But that would be hard. So, just biatch, people. It's what you are good at.


You are aware that, according to Scalia, the Constitution says that it is unconstitutional for Washington D.C. to restrict the ownership of semi-automatic handguns, but not unconstitutional to restrict the ownership of fully-automatic handguns and rifles, right? Which is a "rewriting" of the 2nd amendment, which you accuse others of doing?
 
2012-07-29 10:39:02 PM  

KarmicDisaster: I think that it is cool that the founding fathers were able to anticipate all the current technical developments in weaponry, so we should stick with the literal meaning of the Constitution.


Are you willing to apply that rationale to the first amendment? They sure as heck couldn't conceive of anything like TV, radio, and the internet.
 
2012-07-29 10:39:19 PM  

vygramul: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Only two states actually automatically "permanently" disenfranchise their felons, and at least one of them allows the governor to restore those rights.


That's two states too many then.
 
2012-07-29 10:39:25 PM  

fusillade762: I said it before with these hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenarios: if you are 100% sure you can save a bunch of lives by torturing information out of someone, by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect NOT to be prosecuted and punished for it. If you're that committed to something man up and accept the consequences. Making torture legal for these kinds of HIGHLY unlikely scenarios is asinine.


sharetv.org

I find you guilty Mr. Bauer, 50$ fine and time served, next.........


/It would be awesome if the Jihadist gets awarded 1$ in the civil suit.
 
2012-07-29 10:39:28 PM  

Fail in Human Form: Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.


s2s2s2: Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.


How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?
 
2012-07-29 10:39:44 PM  

GAT_00: Applying that logic for today, and you still have hunting weapons and pistols. Army quality weapons, like semi-automatics and automatics? Not covered under the original intent. To stay EXACTLY true to the Founders intent, like a good 10ther would say, would be to interpret the 2nd to allow traditional militia weapons.


What, you think he's actually a strict constructionist just because he says he is?

That's like believing that Republicans are "good for the economy."
 
2012-07-29 10:39:56 PM  

Mikey1969: vygramul: The same argument can be used to justify censorship of the Internet. There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of freedom of speech with slow to print pamphlets and simply yelling to today's mass media.

Who said that I thought we should censor the internet? The only real censorship I support is stuff like slander/libel laws. I'm a little iffy on hate speech, even on publishing things like bomb plans. I DO think that cyber-bullying should be illegal though, but that's different than censorship, since you are harming someone.


I was saying the argument that the founders couldn't foresee modern weapons applies equally to modern communications.
 
2012-07-29 10:41:17 PM  

Farker Soze: They did their time, why keep punishing them?


'Cause it's funny?
 
2012-07-29 10:41:25 PM  

Farker Soze: vygramul: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Only two states actually automatically "permanently" disenfranchise their felons, and at least one of them allows the governor to restore those rights.

That's two states too many then.


I agree. It's even worse than it looks, because when the provision doing that was added to the VA constitution by a legislator who explicitly stated that it would remove African Americans as an important voting block for the foreseeable future. It's appalling.
 
2012-07-29 10:42:25 PM  

GAT_00: Fail in Human Form: Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.

s2s2s2: Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?


Sex offenders would love to know the answer to that.
 
2012-07-29 10:42:44 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: FTFA: "Such originalism is a dangerous distortion of 21st-Century reality. There is no conceivable way to apply the Founding Fathers' understanding of a "well-regulated militia" armed with slow-to-load, hard-to-aim muskets to today's weapon technology. Arguably, the full extent of alleged gunman James Holmes' munitions could have easily decimated an entire brigade of musketeers before they'd even loaded their first ball."

You're missing the point, cupcake. Back in 1776 the average Colonialist musket was every bit the match of the British Army's most up-to-date firearm. Colonialists who owed rifles (as opposed to muskets) were better armed than the British soldiers they faced. AND IT OFTEN SHOWED IN BATTLE.

FYI, the Founding Fathers intended that private persons be sufficiently well armed and equipped to fend off tyranny, including when it came from their own government. (Though I suspect we aren't going to see Scalia signing up to that.)

So in comparison to the situation facing the Founding Fathers, law abiding, mentally competent adults in this country should be able to "keep and bear" fully automatic military rifles, light machine guns and other hand-held arms.


Don't forget, also, people were allowed to privately own warships, with as many cannons as they could carry as well. I think you are right, and Scalia is torturing logic to the extreme.
 
2012-07-29 10:43:47 PM  

GAT_00: Fail in Human Form: Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.

s2s2s2: Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?


Honestly, you'd have to ask someone much better versed in case law than I am. I seriously doubt that question hasn't come up before though.
 
2012-07-29 10:44:40 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: You're missing the point, cupcake. Back in 1776 the average Colonialist musket was every bit the match of the British Army's most up-to-date firearm. Colonialists who owed rifles (as opposed to muskets) were better armed than the British soldiers they faced. AND IT OFTEN SHOWED IN BATTLE.


Define better armed: a musket can be fired and reloaded much faster, also had a bayonett which is kind of nice to have in close combat.
 
2012-07-29 10:45:03 PM  
You people aren't getting what the 2nd is really about. Strangely enough, Penn and Teller got it right.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1GNu7ldL1LM

/Sorry about the non clickable link, I'm on my phone
 
2012-07-29 10:46:37 PM  

RyogaM: Don't forget, also, people were allowed to privately own warships, with as many cannons as they could carry as well.


Ya' know, I would quit my job in a heartbeat if I could be a privateer. Even better would be to have the US govt. give me a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go after Canadian ships. I'd take their Tim Horton's away from them and mock them.
 
2012-07-29 10:46:46 PM  

vygramul: GAT_00: Fail in Human Form: Then you need to learn how to read. I'll give you a hint. The "liberty" being described in the 5th and 14th amendments is more than just walking around outside.

s2s2s2: Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?

Sex offenders would love to know the answer to that.


"Fark those guys."
 
2012-07-29 10:47:03 PM  

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


Kentucky. Possibly New Hampsire, Louisiana, Colorado, and other states too.

In many states you can own anything if you have the money and a deep abiding love of paperwork. In virtually every state you could build a gauss rifle, or the like AFAIK. As rapid prototype machines become ever more mainstream, states are going to have to be MORE like Kentucky in this respect; there's just not going to be a workable other choice.
 
2012-07-29 10:48:23 PM  

PacManDreaming: RyogaM: Don't forget, also, people were allowed to privately own warships, with as many cannons as they could carry as well.

Ya' know, I would quit my job in a heartbeat if I could be a privateer. Even better would be to have the US govt. give me a Letter of Marque and Reprisal to go after Canadian ships. I'd take their Tim Horton's away from them and mock them.


I'll sign on to be your cabin boy!
 
2012-07-29 10:48:34 PM  

sendtodave: What, you think he's actually a strict constructionist just because he says he is?


I judge people by their own standards. Call yourself a strict Constitutionalists? I'm going to hold you to it. More fun to destroy people by their own standards.

Fail in Human Form: Honestly, you'd have to ask someone much better versed in case law than I am. I seriously doubt that question hasn't come up before though.


I don't think it's legal, but in our crime control mad country it is.

vygramul: I agree. It's even worse than it looks, because when the provision doing that was added to the VA constitution by a legislator who explicitly stated that it would remove African Americans as an important voting block for the foreseeable future. It's appalling.


I was avoiding a specific racial tone on purpose, but it wouldn't surprise me if many of the permanent right losses due to felonies were more common in the South, to target blacks.

vygramul: Sex offenders would love to know the answer to that.


I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.
 
2012-07-29 10:49:19 PM  

Farker Soze: s2s2s2: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Because jail time isn't the entirety of their punishment.

There is parole and probation. Once these are done, why keep punishing them? Cruel and unusual and such.


It's certainly not unusual. And again, it's not that we keep punishing them, it's that they didn't avail themselves of the information ahead of time. If you don't want this shiat to happen to you, for the rest of your life, don't do crime.
 
2012-07-29 10:49:43 PM  

RyogaM: stenciledb: Scalia is perfectly sound in his reading of the constitution. If people don't like what the founders wrote, they can change the constitution rather than just ignoring it and not rewriting it to fit the times. But that would be hard. So, just biatch, people. It's what you are good at.

You are aware that, according to Scalia, the Constitution says that it is unconstitutional for Washington D.C. to restrict the ownership of semi-automatic handguns, but not unconstitutional to restrict the ownership of fully-automatic handguns and rifles, right? Which is a "rewriting" of the 2nd amendment, which you accuse others of doing?


I encourage people to rewrite the constitution. It was set up to be rewritten. Do it right. What does that other case have to do with what he said here? I don't see how that has anything to do with what he said here, unless you are implying that he is inconsistent?
 
2012-07-29 10:51:35 PM  

GAT_00: That was someone else responding to you. I don't have an alt, and do you really think I use other logins? Who else have you seen arguing the same position as me to be an alt?


My apologies. I did indeed err.
 
2012-07-29 10:51:47 PM  

GAT_00: I judge people by their own standards. Call yourself a strict Constitutionalists? I'm going to hold you to it. More fun to destroy people by their own standards.


You think these guys have standards? That they care if they're hypocrites? Who cares?

They have power!
 
2012-07-29 10:53:14 PM  

vygramul: Farker Soze: vygramul: Farker Soze: GAT is right. There is no real reason that most felons shouldn't be able to own firearms, constitutionally. Same with voting. They did their time, why keep punishing them?

Only two states actually automatically "permanently" disenfranchise their felons, and at least one of them allows the governor to restore those rights.

That's two states too many then.

I agree. It's even worse than it looks, because when the provision doing that was added to the VA constitution by a legislator who explicitly stated that it would remove African Americans as an important voting block for the foreseeable future. It's appalling.


Same with firearms. Sure, there are plenty of violent felons who have forfeited their right, but plenty of non-violent people with drug charges being denied self-protection, who are especially in need now that other criminals know that he might have drugs and cannot legally be armed.
 
2012-07-29 10:54:11 PM  

GAT_00: How would permanent sentences not be illegal under the 8th Amendment?

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.


Because "permanent" isn't necessarily "excessive".
 
2012-07-29 10:54:45 PM  
Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.
 
2012-07-29 10:55:03 PM  

sendtodave: You think these guys have standards?


He meant "Alleged" standards. "The flag you fly", and all.
 
2012-07-29 10:55:36 PM  

GAT_00: I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.


One of our arguments is that if we're serious about rehabilitation, you have to give people a path to re-integrate into the community, and voting rights are part of that.

To McDonnell's credit, he's actually restored the rights of some felons who have applied to have them restored.
 
2012-07-29 10:56:57 PM  

s2s2s2: My apologies. I did indeed err.


It's OK, I just don't get why I of all people get accused of it. Come on, if anything I've demonstrated that I stand quite alone in the last month.

s2s2s2: Because "permanent" isn't necessarily "excessive".


How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?
 
2012-07-29 10:59:12 PM  

GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?


Because they are not synonyms. They are distinct words with distinct meanings. We have death sentences and life sentences. Permanent is normal.
 
2012-07-29 11:00:03 PM  

vygramul: GAT_00: I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.

One of our arguments is that if we're serious about rehabilitation, you have to give people a path to re-integrate into the community, and voting rights are part of that.

To McDonnell's credit, he's actually restored the rights of some felons who have applied to have them restored.


You know what I would do with all people getting out of jail? Offer EVERYONE, across the board, a place to live and a job, guaranteed when you leave prison for say, two years. Free access to anything like getting a GRE, technical classes, any of it. Job can be minimum wage, and you can be fired for failure to follow rules, but not fired without cause. The idea is to give everyone a chance to put themselves back on their feet. It's the reason people end up back in jail - they have nowhere to go and no opportunity.
 
2012-07-29 11:00:56 PM  

vygramul: was saying the argument that the founders couldn't foresee modern weapons applies equally to modern communications.


OK, it just seemed an odd thing to throw out there... Either one is a poor argument in favor of curtailing rights, that's for sure.
 
2012-07-29 11:01:01 PM  

stenciledb: RyogaM: stenciledb: Scalia is perfectly sound in his reading of the constitution. If people don't like what the founders wrote, they can change the constitution rather than just ignoring it and not rewriting it to fit the times. But that would be hard. So, just biatch, people. It's what you are good at.

You are aware that, according to Scalia, the Constitution says that it is unconstitutional for Washington D.C. to restrict the ownership of semi-automatic handguns, but not unconstitutional to restrict the ownership of fully-automatic handguns and rifles, right? Which is a "rewriting" of the 2nd amendment, which you accuse others of doing?

I encourage people to rewrite the constitution. It was set up to be rewritten. Do it right. What does that other case have to do with what he said here? I don't see how that has anything to do with what he said here, unless you are implying that he is inconsistent?


Yes, he is inconsistent, completely and totally, and is rewriting the constitution to fit his predetermined view that the 2nd Amendment allows only hand-held weapons, a view not supported in any way by the text of the Constitution or any writings or the original authors. He is not a supporter of the 2nd Amendment, he tortures logic to make the 2nd Amendment mean what he wants it to say, even if that means gun rights are infringed.

I agree, the 2nd amendment should be amended properly, so we don't have to suffer the tortured logic of Scalia and his brethren,
 
2012-07-29 11:01:08 PM  

GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?


Real world scenario: A Sandusky type is released on good behavior. Should he be allowed to be around at risk youth?
 
2012-07-29 11:01:25 PM  

s2s2s2: GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?

Because they are not synonyms. They are distinct words with distinct meanings. We have death sentences and life sentences. Permanent is normal.


Permanent disenfranchisement because you knocked over a mailbox when you were 18 is pretty clearly excessive. Besides, how exactly do you expect people to become part of a community when you openly deny them the same rights as anyone else? That's never worked.
 
2012-07-29 11:02:13 PM  

s2s2s2: GAT_00: How do you not see anything wrong with that sentence?

Real world scenario: A Sandusky type is released on good behavior. Should he be allowed to be around at risk youth?


Yes, if the system actually was designed to rehabilitate, they should.
 
2012-07-29 11:02:22 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.


The ATF can only inspect you if you have an FFL. Otherwise they must get a warrant like everyone else.
 
2012-07-29 11:03:11 PM  

RyogaM: the tortured logic of Scalia


His logic is "These words clearly mean 'this' because, ya know; 'grammar.' " What is tortured about that?
 
2012-07-29 11:03:51 PM  
SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.


There are a lot of things that make Scalia a terrible Supreme Court Justice and an even worse human being, but this isn't one of them.
 
2012-07-29 11:03:59 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.


Yes, but all those hoops you mentioned would be unconstitutional infringements on the right to bear arms if we actually followed the letter of the 2nd amendment.
 
2012-07-29 11:04:05 PM  

GAT_00: Permanent disenfranchisement because you knocked over a mailbox when you were 18 is pretty clearly excessive. Besides, how exactly do you expect people to become part of a community when you openly deny them the same rights as anyone else? That's never worked.


[citationplz]

Is that the only crime on the books, detective?
 
2012-07-29 11:05:34 PM  

Gyrfalcon: The point of the "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means just that: That everyone was allowed to bear arms to protect their STATE, not their precious selves,


They didn't mean "state" as in Idaho or Florida, or Texas, etc... They meant "state" as in the entire country(A nation can also be called a 'state'.). They also meant it in the idea of protecting it from itself. In other words, we protect the nation by ensuring that no gun-grabbing asshole takes control and robs us of our freedoms at gunpoint.
 
2012-07-29 11:05:50 PM  

s2s2s2: GAT_00: Permanent disenfranchisement because you knocked over a mailbox when you were 18 is pretty clearly excessive. Besides, how exactly do you expect people to become part of a community when you openly deny them the same rights as anyone else? That's never worked.

[citationplz]

Is that the only crime on the books, detective?


Right, I forgot, I'm not allowed to give examples without 50 trillion citations to prove I didn't make something up, but to demand any from you is like farking treason or something.
 
2012-07-29 11:07:37 PM  
Funny that he mentions cannons. Cannons are exactly what the lobsterbacks were out to find and confiscate in Concord before they got their asses handed to them, and chased all the way back to Boston. Cannon is what the Tory cur was most concerned about.

So, who kept the cannons after the Revolutionary War? IOW, who would have been allowed to keep cannons?

Was it legal for a private citizen to own a cannon in 1789? To stockpile then current military hardware?

Did every town have like an Elks club where they kept cannon?

I can't think of anything more farking American than shooting somebody who tries to take your cannon away.
 
2012-07-29 11:07:38 PM  
Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?
 
2012-07-29 11:08:30 PM  

Nabb1: Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.

The Continental Army under General Washington was funded by the Continental Congress, and Congress is granted the right to raise an army and a navy. And they didn't "round up militias." They had to beg the militias to stick around and General Washington was constantly in fear during the lean months that he would wake up one morning and the militias would be gone. Washington could (and did) execute deserters from the Continental Army, but the militias were there on a volunteer basis. They weren't conscripted. And who the f*ck do you think Washington lead against the insurrection known as the Whiskey Rebellion?


Congress was granted the right to raise an army AFTER the Constitution was written...for precisely that reason: There was no way to ensure conscripts and state militia would stay with the army. The Continental Congress had no rights that they could enforce--do you not know your own history?

In the Whiskey Rebellion...the states mobilized their own militias at Washington's request. (The Militia Acts of 1792) The only "standing army" at the time was the Legion of the US, which was an Indian fighting unit, developed solely to fight the Seminoles and Cherokee. There was no standing army--despite Congress's mandate to create one--until well after that, when the War of 1812 proved the need for a standing navy.

The militias were the standing army, hence, "the people" had to be ready to mobilize as such when needed. Now that we have a standing army (and Navy, Air Force and Marines), I repeat my former statement, which is that "the people" aren't going to be defending their states if they need to. Maybe they used to, but they WON'T NOW, so that is the weakest possible argument for a citizen's right to bear arms.
 
2012-07-29 11:09:25 PM  

GAT_00: Right, I forgot, I'm not allowed to give examples without 50 trillion citations to prove I didn't make something up, but to demand any from you is like farking treason or something.


No No. We have the courts for this reason. I would hope that more often than not, if someone loses there voting rights, the crime was something more severe (Like the kind of shiat that does real harm[aka WhiteCollar]).


/WTH am I doing{with these thingies}?
 
2012-07-29 11:10:11 PM  

Captain_Ballbeard: Was it legal for a private citizen to own a cannon in 1789? To stockpile then current military hardware?


Yes. In fact, private militias were not uncommon on the frontier.
 
2012-07-29 11:10:18 PM  

buckler: Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?


Yeah, they just don't stop there.
 
2012-07-29 11:10:34 PM  
Remember when gun nut freaks could dismiss this as hyperbole from sensible citizens that advocate gun control?
 
2012-07-29 11:12:23 PM  

GAT_00: vygramul: GAT_00: I wouldn't punish them permanently either. We do crime control completely wrong in this country. Do you know what the biggest factor in someone committing a crime is? Being in jail previously. Once you go to jail, you are MORE likely than before to commit a crime. That's absurd. Permanent losses of rights can only add to that.

One of our arguments is that if we're serious about rehabilitation, you have to give people a path to re-integrate into the community, and voting rights are part of that.

To McDonnell's credit, he's actually restored the rights of some felons who have applied to have them restored.

You know what I would do with all people getting out of jail? Offer EVERYONE, across the board, a place to live and a job, guaranteed when you leave prison for say, two years. Free access to anything like getting a GRE, technical classes, any of it. Job can be minimum wage, and you can be fired for failure to follow rules, but not fired without cause. The idea is to give everyone a chance to put themselves back on their feet. It's the reason people end up back in jail - they have nowhere to go and no opportunity.


Sounds good to me. Oversight is key to prevent employeer abuse, but yes.
 
2012-07-29 11:12:25 PM  

RyogaM: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Why is this a big deal? Other than the age thing (which is just trolling), you can buy a rocket launcher tomorrow, fill out the paperwork, pay the tax stamp for a Destructive Device, and 3-6 months from now have your very own rocket launcher.

The rockets? Each one will cost you market value plus $200 for the tax stamp, and you can be sure that the BATFE will wonder where it went when they legally come to check your NFA inventory. Of course, who is going to sell you a rocket or a launcher? That's the catch. But owning one? No real obstacles if you're a non-felon with a CLEO sign-off, 21 years old and have no history of mental instability or domestic abuse.

I know, a rational post in a 2nd Amendment thread. Which means that it won't even be noticed.

Yes, but all those hoops you mentioned would be unconstitutional infringements on the right to bear arms if we actually followed the letter of the 2nd amendment.


So what? That ship has sailed. No court is going to overturn NFA34 or GCA68. You have the rot to keep and bear arms. Nobody said what kind of arms you were allowed to keep and bear, however. Gun control has been around for generations, all the courts are doing now is staking out how far it can go, saying that the power to control does not encompass the power to ban. But it will always be there in some capacity.
 
2012-07-29 11:12:52 PM  

buckler: Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?


Doesn't matter. It could state "Tin roof sundae being the tastiest of all ice cream, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and the meaning wouldn't change.
 
2012-07-29 11:14:53 PM  

vygramul: Sounds good to me. Oversight is key to prevent employeer abuse, but yes.


Yeah, the system is pretty open to abuse. The Job Creator assumes nobody will trust the felon and makes them do all kinds of shiat. Seems better to have the state be the employer.

s2s2s2: No No. We have the courts for this reason. I would hope that more often than not, if someone loses there voting rights, the crime was something more severe (Like the kind of shiat that does real harm[aka WhiteCollar]).


I can't tell if this is serious or not.
 
2012-07-29 11:15:56 PM  

s2s2s2: RyogaM: the tortured logic of Scalia

His logic is "These words clearly mean 'this' because, ya know; 'grammar.' " What is tortured about that?


Really? Scalia says we have a right to guns we can bear, you know, carry in our arms. Except, by the way, probably not fully-automatic guns, even if they can be carried. Because, no one conceived of the idea of fully-automatic guns at the rectification of the 2nd. Oh, and let's ignore that we had private ownership of ships with as many cannons as they could hold as well. Scalia is not "following the rules of grammar." He is torturing logic to reach his preferred outcome, that is, that semi-automatic, not fully automatic, handguns, and not rifles, are protected by the 2nd. And yes, this is based on his decision in Heller. And here, he doesn't say that hand-held missiles are definitely protected by virtue of being bearable, but that would need to be decided. If he is just following the rules of grammar, then, of course they would be protected. As would a suitcase nuke.
 
2012-07-29 11:17:22 PM  

Mikey1969: Gyrfalcon: The point of the "well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" means just that: That everyone was allowed to bear arms to protect their STATE, not their precious selves,

They didn't mean "state" as in Idaho or Florida, or Texas, etc... They meant "state" as in the entire country(A nation can also be called a 'state'.). They also meant it in the idea of protecting it from itself. In other words, we protect the nation by ensuring that no gun-grabbing asshole takes control and robs us of our freedoms at gunpoint.


It didn't used to, though.

The Thirteen Colonies pretty well figured they'd be separate nations, unified by common goals. If you don't think that's true, read the original Articles of Confederation, with special attention to what a "confederacy" really is. The original idea was that the states were each separate unto themselves and would only unite to face a common enemy, after which they'd disband.

Also see where something similar happened to the ACTUAL"Confederacy" where when faced with a common enemy, the states promptly sat on their own militias for defense of their STATE...not their country.

Which is only proof the Constitution cannot and should not be interpreted the way it was written, but the way it applies to modern times.
 
2012-07-29 11:19:30 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: RyogaM: Adolf Oliver Nipples:

So what? That ship has sailed. No court is going to overturn NFA34 or GCA68. You have the rot to keep and bear arms. Nobody said what kind of arms you were allowed to keep and bear, however. Gun control has been around for generations, all the courts are doing now is staking out how far it can go, saying that the power to control does not encompass the power to ban. But it will always be there in some capacity.


I agree with you 100%.
 
2012-07-29 11:19:43 PM  
So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?
 
2012-07-29 11:20:56 PM  
It's always been my understanding that "arms" is a term that applies to weapons with the ability to select a single target with some degree of reliability. Explosives and such fall under the category of ordnance, so by that definition, Scalia would be wrong. Of course, that's just my .02, based on that definition, and I don't know how steadfast that definition is.
 
2012-07-29 11:21:04 PM  

Gyrfalcon: Nabb1: Corvus: Nabb1: Do you know what "well regulated militia" meant in the late 18th century? It meant, basically,"well-equipped" or "well-armed." Most everyone in that era who lived in a rural area or outside of major cities had experience with the militia, and certainly anyone who served in the revolution knew what it meant. Militias were not armed by the state nor were they paid by the state. They were volunteers, they seldom drilled, and they were equipped with whatever they brought with them, including their firearms. That's not really the part of the amendment you want to hang your argument on. And it does recognize the right of "the people", not militias, to have arms.

In fact in the US Constitution congress can not have a standing army funded. That's the whole point of the 2nd amendment because the US had no standing army. So people with guns WAS it's army.

These people are completely ignoring that early days of the US we had no national military. They had to round up militias from state to state to serve.

The Continental Army under General Washington was funded by the Continental Congress, and Congress is granted the right to raise an army and a navy. And they didn't "round up militias." They had to beg the militias to stick around and General Washington was constantly in fear during the lean months that he would wake up one morning and the militias would be gone. Washington could (and did) execute deserters from the Continental Army, but the militias were there on a volunteer basis. They weren't conscripted. And who the f*ck do you think Washington lead against the insurrection known as the Whiskey Rebellion?

Congress was granted the right to raise an army AFTER the Constitution was written...for precisely that reason: There was no way to ensure conscripts and state militia would stay with the army. The Continental Congress had no rights that they could enforce--do you not know your own history?

In the Whiskey Rebellion...the states mobilized th ...


Maybe he will once again argue against us by reference something that will completely show our point was right like he did last time.
 
2012-07-29 11:23:18 PM  

whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?


Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.
 
2012-07-29 11:25:05 PM  

Farker Soze: buckler: Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?

Doesn't matter. It could state "Tin roof sundae being the tastiest of all ice cream, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and the meaning wouldn't change.


It's where I get sort of knotted up about the whole thing. If a man wanted to put meat on the family table back then, he needed a gun (or maybe not, if he was a trapper), or his family could just cultivate a couple acres and have all the veggies and fruit they wanted to eat. At the time, though, without a standing army, it was up to every household to participate in local defense, so every teen boy and man was expected to own a gun for the purpose of participating in the local, "well-regulated" militia, who would be expected to turn out and drill regularly under the command of the local militia leader. In that case, no man could be denied the right to bear arms, because each man was an integral part of community defense, and that couldn't be denied him.

I just don't think they ever could have envisioned drug wars and cartels, drive-bys, theater shooting maniacs, the NRA, cross-border gun sales stings, no-knock warrant shooting mistakes, and all manner of such idiocy we're seeing today.
 
2012-07-29 11:25:32 PM  

whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?


I personally don't think you can remove someone for being a shiatty judge. Scalia is horrible. Like I pointed out earlier, what he says he he just makes up an interpretation and then when questioned about it broader he then says it has special rules but it unable to come up with a justification for the reasoning and gives a sort of "I am not sure I can makes something up later" kind of thing.


I think it would be a very bad precedent to set to remove a judge because congress thought he was "wrong".

Now Thomas on the other hand I do believe should be removed basically because his wife takes money for "access". it's pretty much bribery. if he doesn't recuse himself from cases that his wife gets paid for he should be impeached.
 
2012-07-29 11:25:39 PM  
SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear,.."

Is this the conventional interpretation? I thought 'bear' in the context of the constitution meant 'to own and wield'. This idea that the arms have to be hand-held is new to me.
 
2012-07-29 11:27:02 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.


Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.
 
2012-07-29 11:27:16 PM  

fozziewazzi: SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear,.."

Is this the conventional interpretation? I thought 'bear' in the context of the constitution meant 'to own and wield'. This idea that the arms have to be hand-held is new to me.


"bear" generally means "hold".
 
2012-07-29 11:28:21 PM  
...or "carry".
 
2012-07-29 11:36:24 PM  

RyogaM: s2s2s2: RyogaM: the tortured logic of Scalia

His logic is "These words clearly mean 'this' because, ya know; 'grammar.' " What is tortured about that?

Really? Scalia says we have a right to guns we can bear, you know, carry in our arms. Except, by the way, probably not fully-automatic guns, even if they can be carried. Because, no one conceived of the idea of fully-automatic guns at the rectification of the 2nd. Oh, and let's ignore that we had private ownership of ships with as many cannons as they could hold as well. Scalia is not "following the rules of grammar." He is torturing logic to reach his preferred outcome, that is, that semi-automatic, not fully automatic, handguns, and not rifles, are protected by the 2nd. And yes, this is based on his decision in Heller. And here, he doesn't say that hand-held missiles are definitely protected by virtue of being bearable, but that would need to be decided. If he is just following the rules of grammar, then, of course they would be protected. As would a suitcase nuke.


Ok.

/come oooooon, Mayans!
 
2012-07-29 11:38:09 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.

Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.


You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights. The first part? Arguably. But nevertheless legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 under the category of Destructive Devices. Feel free to look it up at your leisure.

Since it's already legal and not really part of his purview given that he's not a legislator, he's perfectly free to imply that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher because they in fact can, never mind all of your "Army-grade weapons" hooey. What about a pre-May 1986 civilian-owned AR-15 with select-fire capability, legally owned right now by some private citizen, is distinguishable from what the Army uses right now? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Army-grade? I can go out and get an "Army-grade" M9 right now and be back in a half-hour, legally. Army-grade. That's funny.
 
2012-07-29 11:41:01 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.


There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.

The first part? Arguably. But nevertheless legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 under the category of Destructive Devices. Feel free to look it up at your leisure.

Why are you protecting this idiot?
 
2012-07-29 11:41:15 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Since it's already legal and not really part of his purview given that he's not a legislator, he's perfectly free to imply that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher because they in fact can, never mind all of your "Army-grade weapons" hooey. What about a pre-May 1986 civilian-owned AR-15 with select-fire capability, legally owned right now by some private citizen, is distinguishable from what the Army uses right now? Nothing. Nothing at all.


Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.
 
2012-07-29 11:46:17 PM  
Our second-most stupidest Justice, America
 
2012-07-29 11:47:55 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.

Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.


Link

/incoming "I'm not clicking that link" in 3...2....
 
2012-07-29 11:47:58 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: whidbey: So again, at what point do we consider a SCOTUS judge's behavior bad enough to have him removed from the bench?

Is he lying in this case, or is he being utterly irresponsible with the Bill of Rights?

Neither. He's stating an absolute legal fact. If you can find one and you can get through the appropriate hoops, you can in fact own a rocket launcher in the United States in the year 2012 as a private citizen. That is not a lie, and it is not irresponsible of him to say anything that he said.

Legal? Citation needed. We're talking Army-grade weapons here. You are not an army, you would have absolutely no justification for having one.

Not irresponsible to arm just anyone with rocket launchers? Your opinion.

If you're just being sarcastic, 6/10. Hard to tell.


The state of Kentucky, for one. You don't have to like it. The fact of the matter is lots of paperwork, even more money, plus the specter of prison forever does seem to Kentucky from going full Somalia; despite the fact that they started off as Kentucky. Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.

I invite you to youtube Knob Creek Machinegun Shoot, or FPSRussia for more information. (Though you really should have started watching that on a Friday evening)
 
2012-07-29 11:50:00 PM  

vygramul: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Since it's already legal and not really part of his purview given that he's not a legislator, he's perfectly free to imply that a private citizen can own a rocket launcher because they in fact can, never mind all of your "Army-grade weapons" hooey. What about a pre-May 1986 civilian-owned AR-15 with select-fire capability, legally owned right now by some private citizen, is distinguishable from what the Army uses right now? Nothing. Nothing at all.

Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.


Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.
 
2012-07-29 11:51:21 PM  
Strict constructionist / originalist / republican / conservative.

Different labels that all mean the same things. I have no imagination and new things scare me deeply.
 
2012-07-29 11:51:50 PM  

spongeboob: StoneColdAtheist: You're missing the point, cupcake. Back in 1776 the average Colonialist musket was every bit the match of the British Army's most up-to-date firearm. Colonialists who owed rifles (as opposed to muskets) were better armed than the British soldiers they faced. AND IT OFTEN SHOWED IN BATTLE.

Define better armed: a musket can be fired and reloaded much faster, also had a bayonett which is kind of nice to have in close combat.


Not having to fight in close proximity to the enemy made the rifle a superior weapon. Certainly the musket had the advantage in set-piece, close-range battles between ranks of soldiers, but that's not how the Americans used their rifles. Since their effective range was as much as 3 times that of the Brown Bess, Washington had riflemen organized into special units to attrit British officers and non-coms early in the battle to confuse and demoralize the Brits, along with dogging their formed ranks as they marched from place to place. IIRC the Brits never did have an answer during the war to the Americans' long range rifles, and rightly feared them.
 
2012-07-29 11:51:52 PM  

vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?


Yeah, that's total bullshiat - if someone is too dangerous to let out of prison, keep them in prison, but if they have served their sentence including probation/parole let them have the same rights aas anyone else
 
2012-07-29 11:51:54 PM  

Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.


*shrugs*

I mean, if you can make the case that it's something harmless that rich harmless people do, I can't argue with that.

I don't get that impression from Scalia's quip. He really does sound like he has no moral compass as to what kinds of weapons of destruction should be allowed.
 
2012-07-29 11:52:10 PM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples:
The first part? Arguably. But nevertheless legal under the National Firearms Act of 1934 under the category of Destructive Devices. Feel free to look it up at your leisure.

Why are you protecting this idiot?



Huh. I guess conservatives don't have a monopoly on poking their head in the sand and getting emotional when facts are presented to them.
 
2012-07-29 11:53:16 PM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.

Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.


They don't do what they used to, though...continuing to fire for as long as you pulled the trigger, until the magazine was empty.
 
2012-07-29 11:56:18 PM  

zerkalo: Our second-most stupidest Justice, America


Is it "more stupider" than you?
 
2012-07-29 11:58:14 PM  
More leftist butthurt. Don't like it? Amend the constitution!

Lefties-think of the right to bear arms the way you expect anti-abortionists to think/behave about abortion-accept that what you don't like is legal and either amend the constitution to outlaw it OR STFU!
 
2012-07-29 11:58:52 PM  

buckler: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.

Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.

They don't do what they used to, though...continuing to fire for as long as you pulled the trigger, until the magazine was empty.


Many still do, and in fact a lot of units are going back to full auto instead of crappy 3 round burst. See for instance the M4A1 used by the Army Rangers and Marines.
 
2012-07-29 11:58:58 PM  

buckler: Adolf Oliver Nipples: Full auto distinguishes it from what the Army uses right now. ie, the Army doesn't go full auto.

Sure they do, only it's a three-round burst setting, automatic fire being defined as more than one projectile leaving the barrel with a single pull of the trigger.

They don't do what they used to, though...continuing to fire for as long as you pulled the trigger, until the magazine was empty.


It's still, technically, automatic fire since you pull the trigger once and the gun fires more than once.

In any case, trying to tie army usage to the intention of the 2nd amendment is a losing proposition since the founders were pretty much against standing armies to begin with. Our modern military and police forces would horrify them.
 
2012-07-29 11:59:30 PM  
Arms is short for armaments which is any military weapon ranging from spears to tactical nuclear missiles; so in that sense I guess it would be against the 2nd Amendment to deny a US citizen the right to own a RPG or military grade automatic weapons.
 
2012-07-30 12:02:48 AM  

Nabb1: Where would one lawfully purchase one of those?


I constructed a shoulder fired rocket launcher when I was 13. It's not even rocket science.
 
2012-07-30 12:02:50 AM  
My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.
 
2012-07-30 12:08:53 AM  

vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?


Under Scalia's interpretation, it would be unconstitutional to forbid even people currently in prison from possessing arms of any kind.
 
2012-07-30 12:11:37 AM  

evil saltine: vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?

Under Scalia's interpretation, it would be unconstitutional to forbid even people currently in prison from possessing arms of any kind.


Antonin Scalia: Member of Leviathan, or the Guild of Calamitous Intent, or both?
 
2012-07-30 12:11:50 AM  

pedrop357: My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.


Notice that few people go with the "amend the constitution" simply because that would be the legal and legitimate way to do it.

/Never mind what the law says, Lets find a judge that can read it the way we want.
/Or is it that they know they are wrong and afraid to poke the dynamite monkey?
 
2012-07-30 12:12:01 AM  

Bontesla: I'm going to pull a Michigan and determine that your vote doesn't count.

The yay's have it.
Motion passed.


[WTFamireading.jpg]
 
2012-07-30 12:12:15 AM  

whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.


How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.
 
2012-07-30 12:13:07 AM  
I can't wait for the first time somebody uses a bazooka to stand their ground.
 
2012-07-30 12:15:34 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.


They never foresaw the stark contrast between the arms held by the people and those held by the government, though. At that time, they were the same thing, save for cannons, mortars and the like.
 
2012-07-30 12:17:56 AM  

evil saltine: vygramul: I've always been interested in the abridging of the rights of former inmates. Felons sometimes had their voting rights removed, gun ownership, and today's sex offenders are, in some places, subject to lifelong limitations on things as simple as where they can live and where they may move. Some even have certain speech rights curtailed. The rights lost aren't universal, though, and some are retained. So what is the legal philosophy that makes the distinction between which rights are lost and which are not?

Under Scalia's interpretation, it would be unconstitutional to forbid even people currently in prison from possessing arms of any kind.


That is not correct. In the McDonald opinion he clearly stated that regulations were OK, but banning an entire class of firearms was not. He has never given any indication that he would overturn NFA34 or GCA68.

It would help if you guys wouldn't make assumptions about what Scalia believes and instead actually read what he believes in his opinions. He's perfectly OK with gun control regulations, including the disenfranchisement of felons. So is the rest of the Court. We're they not they could have granted cert to any number of challenges that have come up over the decades.

The Second Amendment is not absolute. What is absolute is that you have the right to keep and bear arms contingent upon your good standing as a citizen of this country, and that entire classes of firearms cannot be banned. Everything else is fair game. Want a registry? Get the votes and enact one, it doesn't violate the amendment. Want the Assault Weapons Ban back? Same thing. Want to ban handguns? Sorry, you can't do that.

Why this has to become a holy war every single time it comes up is beyond me. We can have opposing positions and still be reasonable about it.
 
2012-07-30 12:18:51 AM  

StoneColdAtheist: whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.

How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.


That's rather speculative, and it's just as possible that the Founding Fathers also didn't intend, or for that matter could not fathom concepts like rocket launchers being in the hands of citizenry.

We have courts to interpret what was written in the 2nd Amendment, and I do not feel comfortable with the kind of irresponsible attitude Scalia has towards what was written. He is a person of great power, and I find his flippant remarks disturbing.
 
2012-07-30 12:23:55 AM  

pedrop357: My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.


I think most sane people have no problem putting some reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. We aren't saying it is inconvenient. We are saying that it has its limits.
 
2012-07-30 12:24:20 AM  

whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: whidbey: Adolf Oliver Nipples: You didn't say anything about it being irresponsible to arm anyone with rocket launchers, you asked if Scalia was being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

There isn't a difference. Saying that anyone can be armed with rocket launchers is being irresponsible with the Bill of Rights.

I would expect some ignorant gun nut to make that bullsh*t comparison, not someone paid to interpret the Constitution.

How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.

That's rather speculative, and it's just as possible that the Founding Fathers also didn't intend, or for that matter could not fathom concepts like rocket launchers being in the hands of citizenry.

We have courts to interpret what was written in the 2nd Amendment, and I do not feel comfortable with the kind of irresponsible attitude Scalia has towards what was written. He is a person of great power, and I find his flippant remarks disturbing.


Disturbing or not, they are legally correct. I find opinions favoring abortion disturbing, yet I don't rail against them, I simply respect them as they are in fact the law of the land. And again, Saclia does to have the right to ban them anyway, that is not his responsibility as an appellate judge. Saying that it is legal is not the same as condoning it, disapproving of it, or anything else. It is a statement of fact which he is entitled to make thanks to that pesky Bill of Rights he pisses on, according to you.
 
2012-07-30 12:26:04 AM  

Happy Hours: Yeah, that's total bullshiat - if someone is too dangerous to let out of prison, keep them in prison, but if they have served their sentence including probation/parole let them have the same rights aas anyone else


Agreed.

Paying your debt is paying your debt. No person should be subjected to any prohibitions, residency restrictions, or registration requirements (sex offender, felon, etc.) once their sentence is complete.

I have no issues with barring a person a on probation/parole from voting, possessing firearms or having to register and notify their community. Once their parole/probation is up, those requirements go away.
 
2012-07-30 12:30:07 AM  
That line reminds me of some lines attributed to Abbie Hoffman. ----

If you are around a military base, you will find it relatively easy to get your hands on an M-79 grenade launcher, which is like a giant shotgun and is probably the best self-defense weapon of all time. Just inquire discreetly among some long-haired soldiers.

You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists.

I believe in compulsory cannibalism. If people were forced to eat what they killed, there would be no more wars.
 
2012-07-30 12:32:07 AM  

ArkAngel: It seems what he said was that the original intent of the restriction to handheld/carryable arms has to be looked at again because we now have the capability for handheld/carryable weapons with the kind of destructive capabilities that we wanted restricted, i.e. rocket/grenade launchers .


A light perusal of the comments suggest nobody else actuall listened to the video.
 
2012-07-30 12:33:26 AM  
Why are we having another discussion about this? The de bate is over. There can be no restrictions on guns. The occasional massacre is just the price we pay. I hope it never happens to you or anyone you care about.
 
2012-07-30 12:37:36 AM  

whidbey: Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.

*shrugs*

I mean, if you can make the case that it's something harmless that rich harmless people do, I can't argue with that.

I don't get that impression from Scalia's quip. He really does sound like he has no moral compass as to what kinds of weapons of destruction should be allowed.


Scalia is wrong on his reading. This is self-evident based on the contradiction within it; nevermind his reading's disagreement with reality. He's also a terrible human being. I don't care about Scalia's muddled thinking on anything. He believes what he's paid to believe and he's perfectly willing to torture reason and facts, or simply ignore them to give the thinnest veneer of plausability to his sophistry.

But that's independant of the country you imagine living in. People own destructive devices, grenade launchers, mortars, heavy machineguns, mini-guns, cannons, tanks, and rocket launchers. It's pretty rare. But think of how rare schizophrenia is and mass shootings are, and yet in a country of 300 million people we've come to expect just a few a year. But destructive devices, outside of the anarchists cookbook (an idiot's guide to theatrical suicide), are virtually unheard of. In a nation this large? I personally believe that points to our militia as being well regulated.

That's not to say the practice is without harm. On a larger scale there are unintended/accidental shootings, fires, crimes of passion, but those events are generally the perview of the less able, less skilled, less stable, less well-regulated aspects. There are also less obvious effects, such as lead dust, lead contamination, and others of which I am no doubt ignorant.

I would consider myself an enthusiastic proponant of gun control. But when it comes to interjecting my will into the free time of those, by all accounts, safely preserving the legacy and information surrounding firearms exotic and otherwise, I don't see the point? If I lend my will to taking the joy out of someone else's life, what do I recieve in return? While your fears might be eased, will I see my fellow citizens enjoy more years of life? More wealth? Anything? If I'm to lend my efforts to taking a bite of someone else's freedom, I need a reason I can believe in.
 
2012-07-30 12:41:03 AM  

whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.

That's rather speculative, and it's just as possible that the Founding Fathers also didn't intend, or for that matter could not fathom concepts like rocket launchers being in the hands of citizenry.


I disagree. My point was not only not speculative, but there is a great body of historical research, papers and books to support it. SCOTUS touched on several of those sources in Heller.

FWIW, the Founders could not have envisioned the internet, either, but the law and society certainly extend the rights of the 1st to that medium. If it's good enough for the 1st, drawing a 'new technology' line for the 2nd seems a real stretch to me.
 
2012-07-30 12:41:03 AM  

Pincy: I think most sane people have no problem putting some reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. We aren't saying it is inconvenient. We are saying that it has its limits.


Cute.

"Reasonable restrictions" as defined by groups that have repeatedly called for outright bans, claimed that there is no individual right to own guns, etc. are suspect from the get go. Being a little more objective, it becomes apparent that the restrictions supported/proposed for instruments of the 2nd amendment would be inexcusable and unacceptable if applied to the rights enumerated in 1st amendment or other rights.

How tolerable would it be require a background check, 3 day waiting period, one-a-year limit, special licenses, hard age limits, etc. on abortion? Call them reasonable restrictions on the right to abortion and require costly licenses, fingerprints, zoning, office space, etc. restrictions. Then require patients to register for abortions so we can track them and impose a 5 day "cooling off period" and ensure that they abide by the "one-per-year" limit on abortions. All sounds perfectly reasonable, eh?

How about limits on bookstores? Federal licensing, fingerprints, store front requirements, one-book-a-month limits, magazine size limits, etc.?

The only reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment are the same type that would be reasonable for the 1st. They're not actually restrictions as much as they are limits on the protections of those rights.
You can say what you want, but the 1st amendment won't protect your right to utter "fighting words", threaten people, say things intended to cause panic, etc. You can't be gagged or denied entrance to some place because of what you might do. Similarly, you can't be denied the ability to buy, possess, or carry a firearm because of what you might do. You can be prosecuted for brandishing, discharging in populated areas, etc.
 
2012-07-30 12:43:37 AM  

Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

Yay
 
2012-07-30 12:45:15 AM  

LibertyHiller: Bontesla: I'm going to pull a Michigan and determine that your vote doesn't count.

The yay's have it.
Motion passed.

[WTFamireading.jpg]


You're reading a reference to This (warning video). What I'm referencing starts at 11:59 - everything up to that is great background.
 
2012-07-30 12:46:19 AM  

Nem Wan: Smallest acknowledged nuclear weapon. Not quite hand-held, but you know there must be secret ones that are smaller.
[www.airforce-magazine.com image 300x240]


I don't know if they ever made one, but Project Orion had a 6 inch diameter nuke design. The nuke feed system was designed by Coca-Cola.
 
2012-07-30 12:51:26 AM  

pedrop357: Pincy: I think most sane people have no problem putting some reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. We aren't saying it is inconvenient. We are saying that it has its limits.

Cute.

"Reasonable restrictions" as defined by groups that have repeatedly called for outright bans, claimed that there is no individual right to own guns, etc. are suspect from the get go. Being a little more objective, it becomes apparent that the restrictions supported/proposed for instruments of the 2nd amendment would be inexcusable and unacceptable if applied to the rights enumerated in 1st amendment or other rights.

How tolerable would it be require a background check, 3 day waiting period, one-a-year limit, special licenses, hard age limits, etc. on abortion? Call them reasonable restrictions on the right to abortion and require costly licenses, fingerprints, zoning, office space, etc. restrictions. Then require patients to register for abortions so we can track them and impose a 5 day "cooling off period" and ensure that they abide by the "one-per-year" limit on abortions. All sounds perfectly reasonable, eh?

How about limits on bookstores? Federal licensing, fingerprints, store front requirements, one-book-a-month limits, magazine size limits, etc.?

The only reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment are the same type that would be reasonable for the 1st. They're not actually restrictions as much as they are limits on the protections of those rights.
You can say what you want, but the 1st amendment won't protect your right to utter "fighting words", threaten people, say things intended to cause panic, etc. You can't be gagged or denied entrance to some place because of what you might do. Similarly, you can't be denied the ability to buy, possess, or carry a firearm because of what you might do. You can be prosecuted for brandishing, discharging in populated areas, etc.


You are comparing apples to oranges here but I'll play along. Seeing as it was perfectly legal for GWB to create "Free Speech Zones" and fence in protestors then I would say it is perfectly legal to restrict guns to shooting ranges, call them "Free Fire Zones" if you will.
 
2012-07-30 12:56:00 AM  
FTA: Such originalism is a dangerous distortion of 21st-Century reality.

Don't like it? Amend it. That's the way our system works. Willy-nilly on-the-fly alterations to fit the mindset of the moment isn't how it works.

I don't have a problem with this.
 
2012-07-30 12:58:09 AM  
firearms: noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol,
from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

ordnance: noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.


(emphasis mine)
***

Doesn't anybody understand basic farking vocabulary anymore? The isn't and never has been a question or ambiguity about what the 2nd amendment covered: they said "arms", they mean arms. That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia - that is, all [male, of age] citizens - was expected to provide on their own when called to service. The (much-smaller) army would provide the expensive, cumbersome, dangerous ordnance such as canon during a conflict.

And sorry Scalia, it's pretty clear to most people an RPG is "military ordnance", not "arms", even if we now have the army provide the arms as well, instead of relying on the Militia to maintain that inventory.

/if the founders intended it to cover canon/etc, they would have said ordnance
//more telling, they *did not* say "weapons" in the generic, and instead relied upon "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" like they did everywhere in the constitution
//("the expressed mention of one thing excludes all others")
 
2012-07-30 01:01:25 AM  

pdkl95: firearms: noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol,
from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

ordnance: noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.


(emphasis mine)
***

Doesn't anybody understand basic farking vocabulary anymore? The isn't and never has been a question or ambiguity about what the 2nd amendment covered: they said "arms", they mean arms. That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia - that is, all [male, of age] citizens - was expected to provide on their own when called to service. The (much-smaller) army would provide the expensive, cumbersome, dangerous ordnance such as canon during a conflict.

And sorry Scalia, it's pretty clear to most people an RPG is "military ordnance", not "arms", even if we now have the army provide the arms as well, instead of relying on the Militia to maintain that inventory.

/if the founders intended it to cover canon/etc, they would have said ordnance
//more telling, they *did not* say "weapons" in the generic, and instead relied upon "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" like they did everywhere in the constitution
//("the expressed mention of one thing excludes all others")


I'm guessing the NRA would like to have a word with you.
 
2012-07-30 01:02:39 AM  

Mrbogey: zerkalo: Our second-most stupidest Justice, America

Is it "more stupider" than you?


Perhaps
 
2012-07-30 01:06:20 AM  

pdkl95: firearms: noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol,
from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

ordnance: noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.


(emphasis mine)
***

Doesn't anybody understand basic farking vocabulary anymore? The isn't and never has been a question or ambiguity about what the 2nd amendment covered: they said "arms", they mean arms. That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia - that is, all [male, of age] citizens - was expected to provide on their own when called to service. The (much-smaller) army would provide the expensive, cumbersome, dangerous ordnance such as canon during a conflict.

And sorry Scalia, it's pretty clear to most people an RPG is "military ordnance", not "arms", even if we now have the army provide the arms as well, instead of relying on the Militia to maintain that inventory.

/if the founders intended it to cover canon/etc, they would have said ordnance
//more telling, they *did not* say "weapons" in the generic, and instead relied upon "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" like they did everywhere in the constitution
//("the expressed mention of one thing excludes all others")


So, I take it you don't have an issue with the right to own fully-automatic assault rifles?
 
2012-07-30 01:07:24 AM  

Pincy: I'm guessing the NRA would like to have a word with you.


Why? Just because I let my membership elapse in recent years, once they went off into the land of make-believe with the rest of the GOP?

/strong supporter of the 2nd Ammendment, which does cover most things the NRA has been concerned with over the years
//Just not stuff like RPG-7, M102, MIM-104 Patriot, or the Mark 16
 
2012-07-30 01:08:28 AM  

Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"


Nay! I need pliers for allen key mammaries right now!
 
2012-07-30 01:10:23 AM  

Pincy: You are comparing apples to oranges here but I'll play along. Seeing as it was perfectly legal for GWB to create "Free Speech Zones" and fence in protestors then I would say it is perfectly legal to restrict guns to shooting ranges, call them "Free Fire Zones" if you will.


It's only apples to oranges if you don't respect precedent or embrace concepts like consistency.

It was wrong for GWB to create free speech zones. Another reason I dislike him.

The free speech zones analogy to guns would probably be more accurately done by restricting open carry to specific zones.
 
2012-07-30 01:11:30 AM  

Adolf Oliver Nipples: What is absolute is that you have the right to keep and bear arms contingent upon your good standing as a citizen of this country,


Because that's who the Founders were.
 
2012-07-30 01:12:26 AM  

SN1987a goes boom: doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!

Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.

[encrypted-tbn2.google.com image 171x253]

Kinda disproves you...

/oh wait? you said popular.
//nevermind then.


Empty Matchbook: Wow! If that counts, then me losing my virginity to Black Cat in jr. high TOTALLY COUNTS!! WOOHOO!!!


ontariolightning: Jack Bauer is a founding father too


LordJiro: It's still not something I want a Supreme Court Justice to use as justification.


Giltric: fusillade762: I said it before with these hypothetical "ticking time bomb" scenarios: if you are 100% sure you can save a bunch of lives by torturing information out of someone, by all means, go ahead. Just don't expect NOT to be prosecuted and punished for it. If you're that committed to something man up and accept the consequences. Making torture legal for these kinds of HIGHLY unlikely scenarios is asinine.

[sharetv.org image 227x300]

I find you guilty Mr. Bauer, 50$ fine and time served, next.........

/It would be awesome if the Jihadist gets awarded 1$ in the civil suit.


Scalia specifically cited Season Two? Shortly after it finished, I wrote a little fan filk summarizing its plot:
♪♫ It's time for Twen-ty-Four-i-acs, ♫♪
♫♪ And we're anx-ious to the max! ♪♫
♪♫ We sit back, but can't re-lax ♫♪,
♫♪ Watch-ing ter-ror-ist at-tacks: ♪♫
♪♫ We're Twen-ty-four-i-acs! ♫♪

♫♪ Come join the War-ner Sis-ters ♪♫
♪♫ (and the War-ner fath-er, Bob): ♫♪
♫♪ Just for fun Ma-rie wants to ♪♫
♪♫ roast town like corn-on-cob. ♫♪
♫♪ Kim gets locked up in the cel-lar ♪♫
♪♫ of sur-vi-val-list nut-job: ♫♪
♫♪ Since she's a flooze, ♪♫
♪♫ he lets her loose ♫♪
♫♪ by turn-ing the door-knob! ♪♫

♪♫ We Twen-ty-Four-i-acs ♫♪
♫♪ know the wri-ters are no hacks. ♪♫
♪♫ So, be-fore coun-ter-at-tacks, ♫♪
♫♪ Da-vid Palm-er wants hard facts. ♪♫
♪♫ We're Twen-ty-Four-i-acs! ♫♪

♫♪ For King-sley and the Mys-t'ry Dude ♪♫
♪♫ who want to own the oil, ♫♪
♫♪ Com-man-does flock to-geth-er ♪♫
♪♫ caus-ing Bau-er lots of toil. ♫♪
♫♪ And so he chas-es Hew-ett ♪♫
♪♫ whose es-cape plans to foil: ♫♪
♫♪ The hack-er fell, ♪♫
♪♫ Jack says, "Oh, hell!" ♫♪
♫♪ His heart is gon-na boil! ♪♫

♪♫ We Twen-ty-Four-i-acs ♫♪
♫♪ watch as if bound by con-tracts. ♪♫
♪♫ We're ang-sty to the max, ♫♪
♫♪ Munch-ing T-V din-ner snacks. ♪♫
♪♫ We're Twen-ty-Four-y, ♫♪
♫♪ To-tal-ly eu-phor-y, ♪♫
♪♫ (Em-my A-ward-y?) ♫♪
♫♪ We're Twen-ty-four-iiiii-acs! ♪♫
♪♫ Those are the facts! ♫♪
 
2012-07-30 01:13:36 AM  

StoneColdAtheist:
So, I take it you don't have an issue with the right to own fully-automatic assault rifles?


No issue at all, though they are a pretty stupid purchase for most people. Big, inaccurate gun that eats through your walletammo in seconds? why would you waste your money?

More to the point: it's a delusion to think that, for example, the full-auto M-16 is any more dangerous than the civilian, semi-auto AR-15. It's not like you're going to hit much more by spraying bullets wildly, and anybody who really wants the full-auto can convert it trivially.

It's bad security to believe in delusions, and allowing full-auto isn't just constitutional, it's also being realistic about what's out there in reality.
 
2012-07-30 01:14:26 AM  

pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia



So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!
 
2012-07-30 01:17:34 AM  
Here is everything you need to know about Scalia (from the same interview):

"What about the right to privacy that the court found in 1965?" Wallace pressed.

"There's no right to privacy in the Constitution -- no generalized right to privacy," Scalia insisted.

"Well, in the Griswold case, the court said there was," Wallace pointed out.

"Yeah, it did," Scalia agreed. "And that was wrong."


So let's hear it Conservatives, do you support your own right to privacy or do you agree with Scalia that you don't have one? If there is no right to privacy then you should have no problem with gun registration, since you would still be able to own a gun, you just wouldn't have the right to keep that to yourself.
 
2012-07-30 01:23:03 AM  

Captain_Ballbeard: pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia


So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!


Yes.

And when (not if) we get there, we'll have to lead to live with that reality as a society, de facto.

Wishing that knowledge could just "go away" is futile, and believing you can keep any knowledge secret forever is insanity. So that day will come, eventually. Trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated is not a good idea for society to depend on.

(and that day might be just be sooner than you think, now that we are rapidly entering the world where "3D printers" can make just about anything...)
 
2012-07-30 01:23:32 AM  

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


Swamp man is a billion times better for spurring on thought than using jack Bauer as evidence.

Sorry, you lose on this one.
 
2012-07-30 01:23:45 AM  
Cool. Wait, how much do rocket launchers cost?

/since when do SCOTUS justices do tv interviews?
 
2012-07-30 01:26:11 AM  

Pincy: So let's hear it Conservatives, do you support your own right to privacy or do you agree with Scalia that you don't have one? If there is no right to privacy then you should have no problem with gun registration, since you would still be able to own a gun, you just wouldn't have the right to keep that to yourself.


There is a right to privacy in that the federal government has been granted no power to invade our privacy, the 9th amendment says that the lack of mention in the COTUS doesn't disparage such a right, and the 10th reserves that to the states. That would allow the states to engage in some privacy invasions that the feds couldn't. BUT, a substantial amount of privacy stuff falls pretty well within the scope of the 4th amendment, which when applied to the states via the 14th, only really allows some edge cases of invasions by state governments.

Gun registration generally specifies that a person cannot own a firearm legally without registering it. That part about attaching conditions to ownership would seem to fall within the 2nd amendment's scope the same way a law requiring people to register their book collection would fall within the 1st. Neither registration requirement should make it far enough to be a constitutional privacy issue.
 
2012-07-30 01:26:48 AM  

vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.



I clicked funny but then I cried inside.
 
2012-07-30 01:28:11 AM  

Bucky Katt: Cool. Wait, how much do rocket launchers cost?

/since when do SCOTUS justices do tv interviews?


Because he is selling a book. Yeah I know, we want SCOTUS judges trying to sell books and going on book interview tours? It's horrible.
 
2012-07-30 01:29:19 AM  

pdkl95: Captain_Ballbeard: pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia


So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!

Yes.

And when (not if) we get there, we'll have to lead to live with that reality as a society, de facto.

Wishing that knowledge could just "go away" is futile, and believing you can keep any knowledge secret forever is insanity. So that day will come, eventually. Trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated is not a good idea for society to depend on.

(and that day might be just be sooner than you think, now that we are rapidly entering the world where "3D printers" can make just about anything...)


Maybe that's how all sentient civilizations end. Information and technology become so readily available to everyone that eventually some random nut prints out a quantum inhibitor array and destroys the solar system.
 
2012-07-30 01:30:33 AM  

pedrop357: There is a right to privacy in that the federal government has been granted no power to invade our privacy


You better get on the phone to Scalia fast because he apparently doesn't know what you know.
 
2012-07-30 01:30:48 AM  

pdkl95: Captain_Ballbeard: pdkl95: That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia


So, we just have to wait for tech to advance to the point where a nuke is a "small, hand-held" weapon? yay!

Yes.

And when (not if) we get there, we'll have to lead to live with that reality as a society, de facto.

Wishing that knowledge could just "go away" is futile, and believing you can keep any knowledge secret forever is insanity. So that day will come, eventually. Trying to regulate that which cannot be regulated is not a good idea for society to depend on.

(and that day might be just be sooner than you think, now that we are rapidly entering the world where "3D printers" can make just about anything...)


So the difference between arms and ordinance is just semantic? It has nothing to do with anything but size?
 
2012-07-30 01:47:42 AM  

Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.



Not sure if serious. It's for the white trash with a little money in their pockets who are too fat to ever be in the military, or in shape but too big cowards.
 
2012-07-30 01:49:19 AM  

pedrop357: My god, the stupid is strong there. Every other comment either embraces the idea that because the right to bear arms is inconvenient so it should be ignored, that the 2nd amendment is outdated and shouldn't apply anymore, that the ends justify the means, or in a few cases all 3.



Except nobody is saying this. The people who are saying it is outdated still believe it applies, but just that it applies to well regulated militias of todays age, police forces, national guard, etc. You gun nuts think the 2nd amendment applies to your hobby.
 
2012-07-30 01:51:37 AM  

pedrop357: How about limits on bookstores? Federal licensing, fingerprints, store front requirements, one-book-a-month limits, magazine size limits, etc.?



What next? "ban cars, they kill people too!"

Your strawman arguments and boring and not related to regulating an instrument designed only to kill

There are many limits on abortions by the way.
 
2012-07-30 01:55:08 AM  

pedrop357: Pincy: So let's hear it Conservatives, do you support your own right to privacy or do you agree with Scalia that you don't have one? If there is no right to privacy then you should have no problem with gun registration, since you would still be able to own a gun, you just wouldn't have the right to keep that to yourself.

There is a right to privacy in that the federal government has been granted no power to invade our privacy, the 9th amendment says that the lack of mention in the COTUS doesn't disparage such a right, and the 10th reserves that to the states. That would allow the states to engage in some privacy invasions that the feds couldn't. BUT, a substantial amount of privacy stuff falls pretty well within the scope of the 4th amendment, which when applied to the states via the 14th, only really allows some edge cases of invasions by state governments.

Gun registration generally specifies that a person cannot own a firearm legally without registering it. That part about attaching conditions to ownership would seem to fall within the 2nd amendment's scope the same way a law requiring people to register their book collection would fall within the 1st. Neither registration requirement should make it far enough to be a constitutional privacy issue.



Did you graduate the Skinnyhead school of law?
 
2012-07-30 01:55:25 AM  

Sabyen91: So the difference between arms and ordinance is just semantic? It has nothing to do with anything but size?


Did you miss the whole bit about how arms are not only "small", but they were cheap, personal weapons that the Militia provides? And that firearms have really always meant "personal weapons that propel bullets (or similar) propelled through a tube with a gunpowder like charge". Wild new tech like "rockets" isn't even remotely the same thing.

The distinction between small, personal "arms" and the "ordnance" the army uses has been made for *hundreds* of years. This is not a new idea.
 
2012-07-30 01:58:14 AM  

pdkl95: Sabyen91: So the difference between arms and ordinance is just semantic? It has nothing to do with anything but size?

Did you miss the whole bit about how arms are not only "small", but they were cheap, personal weapons that the Militia provides? And that firearms have really always meant "personal weapons that propel bullets (or similar) propelled through a tube with a gunpowder like charge". Wild new tech like "rockets" isn't even remotely the same thing.

The distinction between small, personal "arms" and the "ordnance" the army uses has been made for *hundreds* of years. This is not a new idea.


I think you are using your terms the way you think it should be interpreted. The second amendment didn't specify "small arms". I think you just don't want to defend the ownership of tanks and artillery so you limit the scope of the second amendment in your mind.
 
2012-07-30 01:59:09 AM  

pdkl95: Did you miss the whole bit about how arms are not only "small", but they were cheap, personal weapons


So, there's a value limit? Pray tell.
 
2012-07-30 02:06:53 AM  
intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.
 
2012-07-30 02:10:57 AM  
Someone said this thread was going to be funny.

I'm sticking with my original call - it's just stupid.
 
2012-07-30 02:19:46 AM  
Scalia is intelligent the way Ayn Rand was insightful and practical.
 
2012-07-30 02:21:13 AM  

intelligent comment below: Tickle Mittens: Exotic weapons ownership is pretty much a hobby for the well to do.


Not sure if serious. It's for the white trash with a little money in their pockets who are too fat to ever be in the military, or in shape but too big cowards.


An assault rifle, maybe, but if your talking about stereotypical white trash a few thousand for a fully automatic weapon would represent a large fraction of their income. Something like a Mini-gun (perhaps a couple 100 grand), or even a M2 Browning (tens of thousands) are at the point where it's impossible to imagine the owners being "white trash". And of course shooting them is absurdly expensive. No one living in $500 trailer has a gun collection worth more than a McMansion.
 
2012-07-30 02:25:02 AM  

Tickle Mittens: Something like a Mini-gun (perhaps a couple 100 grand), or even a M2 Browning (tens of thousands) are at the point where it's impossible to imagine the owners being "white trash".


People that wealthy and that callow rarely exist in the same person. Outside Texas, that is..
 
2012-07-30 02:27:12 AM  

MeinRS6: Someone said this thread was going to be funny.

I'm sticking with my original call - it's just stupid.


And yet you keep posting, Debbie Downer.
 
2012-07-30 02:28:19 AM  
First off, that statement is deserving of an idiot tag. Either Scalia, is an attention whore of the first magnitude or, he really is that stupid.
 
2012-07-30 03:06:54 AM  

Farker Soze: intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.



Hey look another idiot gun nut who has no argument based on anything but knee jerk emotions
 
2012-07-30 03:08:41 AM  

Tickle Mittens: An assault rifle, maybe, but if your talking about stereotypical white trash a few thousand for a fully automatic weapon would represent a large fraction of their income. Something like a Mini-gun (perhaps a couple 100 grand), or even a M2 Browning (tens of thousands) are at the point where it's impossible to imagine the owners being "white trash". And of course shooting them is absurdly expensive. No one living in $500 trailer has a gun collection worth more than a McMansion.



White trash doesn't always have to live in a trailer. Some make good money living off the government tit in contractor jobs, or for oil/coal/gas companies.
 
2012-07-30 04:16:37 AM  

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


Technically the "swamp man" (usually referred to as a "zombie" in the literature, I thought) is supposed to lack qualia, not a soul. Unless there's some theological spin-off I'm not aware of.

It's a pretty absurd thought experiment on surface, but not much more absurd than some of Dennett's opposing "intuition pumps". Mary and the Chinese Room are much less absurd consciousness thought experiments, but of course heavily criticised... it's hard to criticise the qualia-less zombie because it internally begs the question.
 
2012-07-30 04:22:20 AM  

MeinRS6: Someone said this thread was going to be funny.

I'm sticking with my original call - it's just stupid.


Please explain, otherwise I'm going to think you're just whining as per usual.
 
2012-07-30 04:26:49 AM  

vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"


How many rounds would you want available to stop a guy with suitcase nuke? Schumer says 10 is plenty.

/Anybody else think that Schumer looks like the original "Joker" in Batman and maybe that's why he wants more gun control?

// BTW, cessnas fly into big airports too. Rocket launcher unnecessary.
 
2012-07-30 04:29:25 AM  
who called in meinrtatsumaS6?
 
2012-07-30 04:50:11 AM  

Chimperror2: cessnas fly into big airports too. Rocket launcher unnecessary.



So how long before your kind claims any licenses, background checks, and other policies infringe on your Constitutional right to fly a Cessna?
 
2012-07-30 05:23:47 AM  

Corvus: According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.


Sounds like he was retroactively appointed by Rmoney.
 
2012-07-30 05:39:12 AM  
The founding fathers didn't intend their quickly crafted rules to last and apply to today's world.

The writers of religious texts didn't intend their quickly crafted rules to last and apply to today's world.

The writers of todays laws, no matter how good they are today, do not intend for them to last and apply to the world centuries from now.

Always question when people have such a tough time with historical context. It's usually not their real reason for supporting/fighting something.
 
2012-07-30 05:45:55 AM  

intelligent comment below: Farker Soze: intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.


Hey look another idiot gun nut who has no argument based on anything but knee jerk emotions


See, no intelligence in that post at all, yet you're named intelligent comment below. Oh, so ironic. You must be proud.

Now go drink a case of PBR and pass out lying on your back so you asphyxiate you worthless sod. That would really be ironic.
 
2012-07-30 06:53:04 AM  
So what?

I have a right to commit suicide; doesn't mean I'm going to exercise it.
 
2012-07-30 07:25:17 AM  

odinsposse: Civilians can legally own explosive devices and automatic weapons but they are heavily regulated. Rocket launches, assuming we get a ruling saying they are legal to own, would almost certainly be regulated in the same way. Meaning, enthusiasts who have a lot of money will have them but they will be out of reach to most people including most criminals.


You also have the question of what a criminal would do with one, legal or not. Current restrictions are such that while Arnold would be able to get ahold of one if he really, really wanted to, but it's obvious to carry, the feds know you have it, etc... Personally I figure the 'most likely' economic crime job would be taking a bank truck, however the take on would normally be less than the cost of the weapon. Assuming you don't destroy the money with the shot, can't get into the truck after you shoot it, etc... Lots of risk for little reward; you're better off doing 'white collar' crime.

Otherwise you have assassinating people with it - and it's not been that much of a problem. Not even our Sentators and Representatives run around in armor all the time, as is somebody who *really, really* wants to could do it with a high power rifle, which is a couple OOMS cheaper. The president(and I'm not suggesting targeting him) is about the only one that's a 'big enough' target, but they deliberately keep a perimeter around him large and tight enough that you are highly unlikely to be able to sneak anything larger than a bullpup rifle within a mile of him, and his armor is good against that.
 
2012-07-30 07:42:22 AM  
Most criminals don't have rocket launchers. I think proportional weaponry is fine for citizens.
 
2012-07-30 08:01:10 AM  

pedrop357: Pincy: I think most sane people have no problem putting some reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms. We aren't saying it is inconvenient. We are saying that it has its limits.

Cute.

"Reasonable restrictions" as defined by groups that have repeatedly called for outright bans, claimed that there is no individual right to own guns, etc. are suspect from the get go. Being a little more objective, it becomes apparent that the restrictions supported/proposed for instruments of the 2nd amendment would be inexcusable and unacceptable if applied to the rights enumerated in 1st amendment or other rights.

How tolerable would it be require a background check, 3 day waiting period, one-a-year limit, special licenses, hard age limits, etc. on abortion? Call them reasonable restrictions on the right to abortion and require costly licenses, fingerprints, zoning, office space, etc. restrictions. Then require patients to register for abortions so we can track them and impose a 5 day "cooling off period" and ensure that they abide by the "one-per-year" limit on abortions. All sounds perfectly reasonable, eh?

How about limits on bookstores? Federal licensing, fingerprints, store front requirements, one-book-a-month limits, magazine size limits, etc.?

The only reasonable restrictions on the 2nd amendment are the same type that would be reasonable for the 1st. They're not actually restrictions as much as they are limits on the protections of those rights.
You can say what you want, but the 1st amendment won't protect your right to utter "fighting words", threaten people, say things intended to cause panic, etc. You can't be gagged or denied entrance to some place because of what you might do. Similarly, you can't be denied the ability to buy, possess, or carry a firearm because of what you might do. You can be prosecuted for brandishing, discharging in populated areas, etc.


1. There already are several restrictions on abortions, similar to background checks and waiting periods and a limited number per year.

2. Are you actually arguing that there shouldn't be a background check? That we shouldn't investigate whether or not someone has a criminal record or mental health issues before purchasing an tool who's primary function is to harm and kill living beings? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying when you claim people would be up in arms if they had to get a background check before having an abortion. If so, you're just as crazy-extreme as people wanting bans.

3. Compare guns to guns when you're talking about guns. There's no need to compare guns to the 1st Amendment or 14th when there's already an amendment that addresses the issue of guns.
 
2012-07-30 08:15:45 AM  
Seriously if your ever in a situation like Aurora you WANT the guy to have a gun that fires 100 rounds a minute. In order to carry enough ammo to fire longer than 60 seconds dude would be having a hard time walking around.

Once the initial barrage is over you're free to kick his ass.

Of course that's assuming he's kept the weapon cleaned and in a state of readiness that it doesn't jam after the 10th round. Then you can kick his ass even sooner

Or that he can fire for a minute straight without overheating and causing a jam or pre-mature round firing.

Fully auto guns are only really cool in the movies, in real life they can be a pain in the ass when not used correctly, and even then they can be a big hassle.
 
2012-07-30 08:15:54 AM  

Dracolich:

The writers of religious texts didn't intend their quickly crafted rules to last and apply to today's world.



I don't know about that. When you are writing about the infallible word of God, I think it's pretty apparent that whatever rules you write are meant to be set "in stone". As an example, it's not like the Fifteen, err Ten!, Commandments were written with a number 2 pencil that could be easily erased. The fact that the symbology used was 3, err 2! stone tablets as opposed to a simple scroll is important to consider.
 
2012-07-30 08:29:30 AM  

vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"


Well, remember that we have to look at everything through an 18th century mindset which, apparently, Scalia is uniquely able to channel. I'm guessing nukes are out because the founding fathers didn't know about them.
 
2012-07-30 08:38:57 AM  

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy.


Remember how on Battlestar Galactica they got more useful information out of a cylon prisoner that they didn't torture than did the crew of the Pegasus when they brutalized their cylon prisoner?

/Fiction - how does it work?
 
2012-07-30 08:46:07 AM  

doglover: vernonFL: This is something Scalia actually said, in the context of torture:

"Jack Bauer saved Los Angeles. ... He saved hundreds of thousands of lives," Judge Scalia said. Then, recalling Season 2, where the agent's rough interrogation tactics saved California from a terrorist nuke, the Supreme Court judge etched a line in the sand.

"Are you going to convict Jack Bauer?" Judge Scalia challenged his fellow judges. "Say that criminal law is against him? 'You have the right to a jury trial?' Is any jury going to convict Jack Bauer? I don't think so.

You mean someone used hypothetical argumentation in a logical argument? Color me shocked!


Seriously though, using ANYTHING from a play, movie, or TV show that's popular is about a million times more intelligent than some of the greatest thought "experiments" ever put to paper in philosophy. Big one I take issue with is "Swamp Man" where a being molecularly identical to you in every way magically springs forth from swamp muck and is completely identical to you except that it doesn't have a soul. And it's a serious cornerstone of arguments for and against duality. Diogenes would have spat on someone who herped that much derp back in Athens.


news.whoviannet.co.uk

Molecularly identical beings spring forth from the muck?

/not obscure at all
 
2012-07-30 08:52:04 AM  

Graffito: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

Well, remember that we have to look at everything through an 18th century mindset which, apparently, Scalia is uniquely able to channel. I'm guessing nukes are out because the founding fathers didn't know about them.


Scalias mindset aside, you could go more recently since the amendment was never altered. The last redefining of weapon types legally was the NFA, which would likely call a suitcase nuke a destructive device (or maybe AOW?).
$200 tax stamp and you can license it, then hang it on a wall alongside your Excalibur sword and star trek phaser.
 
2012-07-30 08:53:24 AM  

snowshovel: When you are writing about the infallible word of God,


But most them weren't the word of "God" when they started, but the word of a local tribal god in a henotheistic structure, henotheism being "multiple gods exist, but mine is the best." So that doesn't hold up as absolute.
 
2012-07-30 08:57:10 AM  
He said there could be limitations to the 2nd Amendment. You could own a head axe, you just can't carry it around to scare people. We already have those regulations on arms.
 
2012-07-30 09:03:11 AM  

pdkl95: firearms: noun
a small arms weapon, as a rifle or pistol,
from which a projectile is fired by gunpowder.

ordnance: noun
1. cannon or artillery.
2. military weapons with their equipment, ammunition, etc.


(emphasis mine)
***

Doesn't anybody understand basic farking vocabulary anymore? The isn't and never has been a question or ambiguity about what the 2nd amendment covered: they said "arms", they mean arms. That is, small, hand-held weapons the militia - that is, all [male, of age] citizens - was expected to provide on their own when called to service. The (much-smaller) army would provide the expensive, cumbersome, dangerous ordnance such as canon during a conflict.

And sorry Scalia, it's pretty clear to most people an RPG is "military ordnance", not "arms", even if we now have the army provide the arms as well, instead of relying on the Militia to maintain that inventory.

/if the founders intended it to cover canon/etc, they would have said ordnance
//more telling, they *did not* say "weapons" in the generic, and instead relied upon "expressio unius est exclusio alterius" like they did everywhere in the constitution
//("the expressed mention of one thing excludes all others")


I'm not sure "ordnance" in that sense was in regular usage back then. Especially once you consider the fact that they didn't say firearms, but arms, a more generc form meaning, simply, weapons. It's not that I think they thought canon were protected, though it would't surprise me, but they didn't want to start a list. After all, they also still carried swords.

That being said, recall, too, that its lack of inclusion doesn't qualify as a priori proof that your right to it doesn't exist.
 
2012-07-30 09:08:26 AM  
This means that Scalia loses the Supreme Court election and Michael Moore becomes chief justice for life
 
2012-07-30 09:24:06 AM  
"If you can carry it in your hands, it's legal" is the dumbest interpretation of the Second Amendment I've ever heard. So, if somebody is born with one arm, he only has the right to "bear" one-handed weapons? The Amendment only applies to arms one can "bear," right? And, the Founding Fathers speak to you in your dreams, so they must have explained to you that the word bear means "to lift physically" and not "to operate" in the context of weapons. Moron.
 
2012-07-30 09:29:35 AM  
american conservatism - failed ideas for a failed country
 
2012-07-30 09:39:08 AM  

vygramul: I'm not sure "ordnance" in that sense was in regular usage back then. Especially once you consider the fact that they didn't say firearms, but arms, a more generc form meaning, simply, weapons. It's not that I think they thought canon were protected, though it would't surprise me, but they didn't want to start a list. After all, they also still carried swords.


The abolitionist Cassius Clay kept a working cannon in his office to keep the pro-slavery crowd at bay. It may have been a couple generations removed from the founders, but nobody challenged his right to own it.
 
2012-07-30 09:46:03 AM  

Three Crooked Squirrels: Bontesla: mrshowrules: vartian: A commentator raised an interesting question: "Aren't suitcase nukes technically hand-held?"

I support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

This seems reasonable.
I, too, support a 24 hour waiting period for suitcase nukes.

I suggest we vote on the motion before us.

All in favor say, "yay"
All opposed say, "nay"

Nay. Too restrictive. What part of "Congress shall make no law . . ." do you not understand?


Technically that only applies to the First Amendment.
 
2012-07-30 09:51:27 AM  

imontheinternet: "If you can carry it in your hands, it's legal" is the dumbest interpretation of the Second Amendment I've ever heard. So, if somebody is born with one arm, he only has the right to "bear" one-handed weapons? The Amendment only applies to arms one can "bear," right? And, the Founding Fathers speak to you in your dreams, so they must have explained to you that the word bear means "to lift physically" and not "to operate" in the context of weapons. Moron.


Well, yeah. The 2nd Amendment doesn't protect any right to use weapons. Keep, sure. Bear? Absolutely. Fire? Nope.

Makes sense, too... The original intent of the 2nd was to keep a tyrannical government from confiscating arms to suppress rebellion... but using weapons as part of a rebellion is treason, by definition, and wouldn't be constitutionally protected. Of course, by the time you've declared open war on the government, courts and legal rights are irrelevant. Hence, "using" arms is moot in the context of the 2nd Amendment.

Basically, all of the NRA "the Second Amendment protects mah right to kill intruding deer and hunt burglars" arguments are incorrect and are looking at the wrong amendment.

/according to the textualists
//the "living document" side would acknowledge that the Second has gained a new definition
 
2012-07-30 10:00:26 AM  
So, presumably Scalia would have no problem with a suitcase dirty-bomb.
 
2012-07-30 10:02:51 AM  
Awesome... I've always wanted one of these:

loyalkng.com

If that kid had one, that audience wouldn't stand a chance...
 
2012-07-30 10:06:10 AM  

vygramul: I'm sure I could convince Scalia to change his mind about the cannons. After all, there was private ownership of artillery during the time of the Founders.


There still is:

i46.tinypic.com

My mortar. I can put a 1 lb projectile at least 300 yards away. If I used projectiles that were actually aerodynamic, instead of just tin cans half-filled with cement, I'm guessing I could extend that by a third, at least.

Though I can carry the mortar short distances by myself, so maybe that would fall under the "bear" part.

/RTFA: He says "it will have to be decided".
 
2012-07-30 10:09:52 AM  

PsyLord: Awesome... I've always wanted one of these:

[loyalkng.com image 616x431]

If that kid had one, that audience wouldn't stand a chance...


You can buy those at the home depot.
/well, not exactly the same thing.
/you can get all the parts there tho, not that I want to give people any ideas.
 
2012-07-30 10:16:29 AM  

Bontesla: LibertyHiller: Bontesla: I'm going to pull a Michigan and determine that your vote doesn't count.

The yay's have it.
Motion passed.

[WTFamireading.jpg]

You're reading a reference to This (warning video). What I'm referencing starts at 11:59 - everything up to that is great background.


I assumed you were talking about PA 4, I just didn't know why it was relevant to this discussion.

The video (as described in the text) raises an interesting point; if Art. IV Sec. 27 has been violated, then that's a problem. I'm surprised that nobody's tried that argument in the courts. Even the Michigan Supremes should have a hard time swallowing that kind of behavior.

You do understand that if PA 4 is overturned, whether by the courts or by referendum, all that means is that the EFMs stay in place but with the powers outlined in the 1990 law, don't you?
 
2012-07-30 10:17:29 AM  

vygramul: I'm not sure "ordnance" in that sense was in regular usage back then. Especially once you consider the fact that they didn't say firearms, but arms, a more generc form meaning, simply, weapons. It's not that I think they thought canon were protected, though it would't surprise me, but they didn't want to start a list. After all, they also still carried swords.


It says "arms" precisely because guns aren't the only militarily useful weapon for an infantry soldier. It includes things like bayonets, swords, pikes, tomahawks, knives, clubs, bows, crossbows, etc. One could argue that grenades would be included in that also, because they were used back then, though not issued as commonly to the infantry as they are today.

One might infer that the founders used a general term for weapons because they had no idea what might be developed in the future and wanted them to be covered also, but that *MIGHT* be giving them too much credit. What 18th Century person could have envisioned a ray gun? Still, by using a general term instead of a specific one like "musket" or "rifle", or even "firearm", they intentionally left the door open for all sorts of weaponry to be included, and we have to assume they did that on purpose, at least as it pertains to weaponry of the common soldiery.

Oh, and by that reading, machine guns would be protected.
 
2012-07-30 10:25:55 AM  

Dan the Schman: 1. There already are several restrictions on abortions, similar to background checks and waiting periods and a limited number per year.


There are no restrictions on abortion or other rights that compare with those imposed/proposed on instruments of the 2nd amendment.

The closest you get is 24 hour waiting periods which are attacked as unconstitutional and anti-woman. There are no licensing, registration, background checks, etc. before a person can get an abortion. There are no one-abortion-per-year laws.

2. Are you actually arguing that there shouldn't be a background check? That we shouldn't investigate whether or not someone has a criminal record or mental health issues before purchasing an tool who's primary function is to harm and kill living beings? Because that's what it sounds like you're saying when you claim people would be up in arms if they had to get a background check before having an abortion. If so, you're just as crazy-extreme as people wanting bans.

Yes, I'm against the background checks. They haven't done any good and have served to simply add costs and bureaucracy to the exercise of a right. Background checks weren't mandatory before 1933

3. Compare guns to guns when you're talking about guns. There's no need to compare guns to the 1st Amendment or 14th when there's already an amendment that addresses the issue of guns.

I'll have to remember this when people talk about licensing guns the same way we license cars.

No, sorry. He's attacking an enumerated right, the justifications for which would be appalling if applied to other rights and effectively diminishes and dilutes some rights and leaves others more intact. The methods he thinks should be used to infringe (yes, infringe) on the 2nd could also be used to undermine the other enumerated an unenumerated rights. Sorry, all rights are equal and an attack on one is an attack on the rest.
 
2012-07-30 10:29:52 AM  

dittybopper: One might infer that the founders used a general term for weapons because they had no idea what might be developed in the future and wanted them to be covered also, but that *MIGHT* be giving them too much credit. What 18th Century person could have envisioned a ray gun? Still, by using a general term instead of a specific one like "musket" or "rifle", or even "firearm", they intentionally left the door open for all sorts of weaponry to be included, and we have to assume they did that on purpose, at least as it pertains to weaponry of the common soldiery.

Oh, and by that reading, machine guns would be protected.


One might infer that the founders used a general term for press because they had no idea what might be developed in the future and wanted them to be covered also, but that *MIGHT* be giving them too much credit. What 18th Century person could have envisioned blogging? ;)

The length of the Constitution alone should indicate that it was not intended to be taken as literally and explicitly covering everything within its scope.
 
2012-07-30 10:30:12 AM  

PsyLord: Awesome... I've always wanted one of these:

[loyalkng.com image 616x431]

If that kid had one, that audience wouldn't stand a chance...


Go buy one. They are not federally regulated and are usually classifed as for agricultural use....except in California....

In the United States, private ownership of a flamethrower is not restricted by federal law, but is restricted in some states, such as California, by state laws (cf. California Health and Welfare Codes 12750-12761, Flamethrowing Devices).[31]


/You know maybe we shouldn;t be telling all these farkers whats legal and whats not....they might have a heart attack or never come out from under their beds.
//if thats the case, maybe we should tell them.
 
2012-07-30 10:32:01 AM  

pedrop357: Yes, I'm against the background checks. They haven't done any good and have served to simply add costs and bureaucracy to the exercise of a right. Background checks weren't mandatory before 1933


That's absolute nonsense. Background checks make it more difficult for convicted felons to purchase firearms.
 
2012-07-30 10:32:17 AM  

dittybopper: What 18th Century person could have envisioned a ray gun?


Or the mind ray?
i232.photobucket.com
 
2012-07-30 10:36:19 AM  

Graffito: dittybopper: What 18th Century person could have envisioned a ray gun?

Or the mind ray?
[i232.photobucket.com image 256x171]


Yes to both, actually.
 
2012-07-30 10:37:48 AM  

GAT_00: I'm thinking about the militia aspect too. Now, and this is partially speculation, but militias of the day often brought their own weapons. These were normal people, bringing hunting weapons and pistols out. You wouldn't own an Army smoothbore, what's the point? Can't hit shiat with it, that's why they used to line up - so the bullet could do something. You'd own a bored hunting rifle, and let's just assume a pistol. But you would be unlikely to have anything else. There may be smoothbores in a arsenal somewhere, but they weren't in private possession.


Completely and utterly false. In New England, the heart of the Revolution, the most common hunting gun was a smoothbore fowler.

In fact, the only thing that was necessary to convert a civilian fowling piece into a military ready musket was to solder a bayonet lug onto the barrel, and that's just what they did. In some cases, they just used plug bayonets, which is basically a bayonet with a tapered wooden handle that can be jammed into a smoothbore fowler or musket (which again, are functionally identical).

Smoothbores were also commonly sold to the Indians as "trade guns". There were entire arsenals in Europe dedicated to producing smoothbore guns for the North American civilian and native market.

In fact, rifled guns were pretty much unknown in New England until the Revolution. They were only common from Pennsylvania and towards the south, in the predominantly German areas. In areas that were almost entirely settled by the English, the smoothbore predominated, and in truth is probably the better all-around gun: You can hunt big game with a single ball, or buckshot. You can hunt birds and small game with smaller shot, and you can use it as a common musket would have been used in a military fashion.

The New Englanders present were astonished at the capabilities of riflemen posted to the siege of Boston in 1775, commenting on how they could hit a target at 200 yards, something unheard of with their smoothbores. Their rifled guns, while relatively common in Pennsylvania, Maryland, and Virginia, were unheard of in Massachusetts, and the locals took great note of the fact.
 
2012-07-30 10:39:51 AM  

Theaetetus: The length of the Constitution alone should indicate that it was not intended to be taken as literally and explicitly covering everything within its scope.


Yep.
 
2012-07-30 10:42:09 AM  

imontheinternet: "If you can carry it in your hands, it's legal" is the dumbest interpretation of the Second Amendment I've ever heard. So, if somebody is born with one arm, he only has the right to "bear" one-handed weapons? The Amendment only applies to arms one can "bear," right? And, the Founding Fathers speak to you in your dreams, so they must have explained to you that the word bear means "to lift physically" and not "to operate" in the context of weapons. Moron.


The interpritation of 'arms' as decided in US v Miller*. The conclusion there was that the weapons deserving the most protection were those that were 'militarily useful', IE used by the military by individual soldiers. Now, as Miller had died and his attorney decided not to show up in court(as it was moot for his client), no evidence of the military use of short barreled shotguns was presented, thus the NFA rules on them upheld. In reality, even a half-hearted defense would have been able to dredge those up, what with trench guns in WWII.

Still, until the recent supreme court cases, one can easily argue that the Supreme Court itself decided that you should have more right to own a M-16 or M-4 than a single shot .22lr plinker, as the plinker has no valid military use while the M-16 line of weapons is issued to just about every soldier who might go into combat.

*And a screwed up case it was, Miller died before it hit the SC, and thus the federal government got to make it's arguments unapposed.
 
2012-07-30 10:51:09 AM  
This thread has been very informative.

I had previously underestimated the number of people who would launch into ill-informed and downright ignorant attacks on topics they have little or no understanding of. And do so loudly, and aggressively.

The amount of just plain wrong on both sides of this are staggering.

Fark, I am amazed.
 
2012-07-30 10:54:37 AM  
BTW, as an originalist textualist constitutionalist, THIS is the only valid interpretation of the Founder's original intent:

t-shirtguru.com
 
2012-07-30 10:58:48 AM  

Dracolich: The founding fathers didn't intend their quickly crafted rules to last and apply to today's world.

The writers of religious texts didn't intend their quickly crafted rules to last and apply to today's world.

The writers of todays laws, no matter how good they are today, do not intend for them to last and apply to the world centuries from now.

Always question when people have such a tough time with historical context. It's usually not their real reason for supporting/fighting something.


And there are ways to change them. Change the constitution, start a new religion, repeal/amend the law, Those are all available. Why do you think 9 old people should be given or doing a task that rule writers won't do.

The problem is that when something happens that you don't like, you want to short circuit the method.
 
2012-07-30 10:59:32 AM  

Firethorn: *And a screwed up case it was, Miller died before it hit the SC, and thus the federal government got to make it's arguments unapposed.


Something not often mentioned is that the government made the argument that Second Amendment rights only applied to those actively enrolled in the militia, thus was a collective right and not an individual one, and even though they argued unopposed, the Supreme Court implicitly rejected that argument.
 
2012-07-30 11:01:57 AM  

dittybopper: vygramul: I'm not sure "ordnance" in that sense was in regular usage back then. Especially once you consider the fact that they didn't say firearms, but arms, a more generc form meaning, simply, weapons. It's not that I think they thought canon were protected, though it would't surprise me, but they didn't want to start a list. After all, they also still carried swords.

It says "arms" precisely because guns aren't the only militarily useful weapon for an infantry soldier. It includes things like bayonets, swords, pikes, tomahawks, knives, clubs, bows, crossbows, etc. One could argue that grenades would be included in that also, because they were used back then, though not issued as commonly to the infantry as they are today.

One might infer that the founders used a general term for weapons because they had no idea what might be developed in the future and wanted them to be covered also, but that *MIGHT* be giving them too much credit. What 18th Century person could have envisioned a ray gun? Still, by using a general term instead of a specific one like "musket" or "rifle", or even "firearm", they intentionally left the door open for all sorts of weaponry to be included, and we have to assume they did that on purpose, at least as it pertains to weaponry of the common soldiery.

Oh, and by that reading, machine guns would be protected.


Entirely unrelated CSB:
One of my favorite tales from archeology was the story of how some scientists were looking for a famous sculptors workshop among the ruins. In the trash, they found a mug enscribed with something like "I belong to thassisus".
To me it was a humanizing thing. Because you had to think that even back then, some poor guy kept loosing his stuff at the office and he had to label it.

The underlying point is that while technology changes, humans don't. This is why some laws never seem to need altering. Every generation sees them as true and endorses the old rule because it's still applicable.
The founding fathers were not the first or last to deal with tyranny, but there were among the few to put their old king in his place and form a system that seemed be immune to it.
At the heart of that system was the ideal of giving power to the people. Political power, and physical power. Because they knew that a monopoly didn't serve the public good.
Arms were to be kept among the people because, ultimately, this was their nation. Not the kings, not the presidents, and not the congress.

If a thing is too dangerous for the people to own, perhaps it's too dangerous for the government. Congress should be leading the gun ban debate by example, and order their own guards to give up high capacity magazines and assault weapons first.

/Because of all the nuclear weapons ever made, The president is the only person to have ever used them in anger.
 
2012-07-30 11:13:07 AM  

BojanglesPaladin: This thread has been very informative.

I had previously underestimated the number of people who would launch into ill-informed and downright ignorant attacks on topics they have little or no understanding of. And do so loudly, and aggressively.

The amount of just plain wrong on both sides of this are staggering.

Fark, I am amazed.


Please enlighten us with your wisdom as I'm sure you have a law degree and specialized in Constitutional law.
 
2012-07-30 11:17:37 AM  

way south: The president is the only person to have ever used them in anger.


I'm not sure it is accurate to say that they were used "in anger". At least not in any connotation that suggest that Truman only did so out of some emotional response.

One can certainly say that the US President is the only person to have ever ordered the use of a nuclear weapon with the intent to kill.
 
2012-07-30 11:22:39 AM  

Pincy: Please enlighten us with your wisdom as I'm sure you have a law degree and specialized in Constitutional law.


I do not. Which is why you won't see me posting stupid things like "OMG! Scalia is a retard who might as well hold seances to divine the Founder's original intent!" or "The Founding Fathers definately unanimously envisioned that every citizen has a right to tanks!".

I'm all for a discussion of complex issues in a rational, informed way. Or even some good natured poking fun. But too much of this thread is just thoughtless parrot wharbgle by people who have chosen to replace informative discussion with reflexive talking points and insults .

There are plenty of good posts mind you, but the volume of the slap-fight brigade is particularly high.
 
2012-07-30 11:26:44 AM  

LibertyHiller: Bontesla


My reference wasn't to PA 4. So, it wasn't/isn't relevant to this discussion. It's okay. We all make mistakes :)

In regards to your surprise that no one has tried the argument in courts: In March/April, an Ingham County Circuit Judge granted a temporary order forcing Republicans to follow the procedures outlined. The judge also reversed the "immediate effect" of two pieces that were recently passed at that time. If I recall correctly, after the temporary order expired, the judge ruled in favor of the Democrats who launched the suit. The Republicans were planning on appealing the decision.
 
2012-07-30 11:30:25 AM  
Are we STILL doing this? Seriously guys. Debates over. Guns won. Sometimes that means a bunch of us will get killed by someone packing way too much heat. Price we pay. Get over it. It's not like if they were better regulated we'd be immortal anyway. This just means some of us may get to die in horrible pain with a bullet lodged in our spine. Can't change it.
 
2012-07-30 11:35:12 AM  

Scerpes: That's absolute nonsense. Background checks make it more difficult for convicted felons to purchase firearms.


In theory yes, in reality no.
 
2012-07-30 11:36:55 AM  

Bontesla: LibertyHiller: Bontesla

My reference wasn't to PA 4. So, it wasn't/isn't relevant to this discussion.


Maddow was talking about PA 4. What were you talking about?

In regards to your surprise that no one has tried the argument in courts: In March/April, an Ingham County Circuit Judge granted a temporary order forcing Republicans to follow the procedures outlined. The judge also reversed the "immediate effect" of two pieces that were recently passed at that time. If I recall correctly, after the temporary order expired, the judge ruled in favor of the Democrats who launched the suit. The Republicans were planning on appealing the decision.

So, the system of checks and balances worked?
 
2012-07-30 12:25:00 PM  
WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully.


The thing is....rocket launchers are legal. If you don't like that, challenge their legality. If and when their legality is challenged Scalia claims he would decide the case very carefully.

Its an answer that the left is not happy with, yet if he claimed I would keep them legal the gun grabbers would be calling him an activist judge legislating from the TV instead of the bench.

Remember...giving a non definitive answer leads to outrage from the gun grabbers, giving a definitive answer in favor of rocket launchers would lead to outrage from the gun grabbers.

the only thing that would make the gun grabbers happy is if Scalia had said that nobody should be able to possess or own a firearm.....it's kind of disgusting that Americans wish to deny other people inalienable rights.

The gun grabbers are the group who feel a mental eval should be given to anyone who wants to purchase a firearm......why not a mental eval for those who wish to deny other people an inalienable right?
 
2012-07-30 12:45:42 PM  

Corvus: s2s2s2: MithrandirBooga: s2s2s2: Militias aren't people, my friend.

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.

You bolded part has nothing to offer my bolded part. Read it until you understand that X is not Y.

So then why is it just recently how the 2nd amendment was interpreted changed. You believe for 200 years people got it wrong until just recently?


For 200 years we've been constantly changing and reinterpreting and revisiting the second amendment.

Anyone arguing that the 2nd is cut and dried isn't arguing in good faith. Anyone arguing that we should all be surprised that the 2nd amendment ISN'T cut and dried ALSO isn't arguing in good faith.

Anyone arguing that Scalia has been inconsistent on the issue is correct. Anyone implying that he's the only one is not.

The second amendment is one of the most ruled upon amendments in our constitution.

What is the actual "purpose" of that purpose clause? Are we intended to infer that "the people" being discussed are indistinct from the keeping of a well regulated militia? We know the founders agreed to not have a standing army, so what truly was the meaning of the militia? Does it matter if it wasn't meant to apply to the rights being discussed as belonging to "the people"?

Outside of the context of a well-regulated militia, who are "the people?" Is it each person or is all people?

When the amendment says "keep and bear" are they meant to be taken in-toto or are they intended to be separated (The right to keep arms, and the right to bear arms vs. the right to keep and bear arms)?

What does it mean to keep arms? What does it mean to bear arms? Exactly. And what counts as "arms"? Does the militia context in the purpose clause apply to the arms?

Case law has answered a lot of these questions. Inconsistently. Since before the turn of the19th century.
 
2012-07-30 12:52:12 PM  

BeesNuts: Anyone arguing that the 2nd is cut and dried isn't arguing in good faith. Anyone arguing that we should all be surprised that the 2nd amendment ISN'T cut and dried ALSO isn't arguing in good faith.


Which is the point I was making. These other people are pretending it is cut and dry it is not.
 
2012-07-30 12:53:38 PM  

Corvus: BeesNuts: Anyone arguing that the 2nd is cut and dried isn't arguing in good faith. Anyone arguing that we should all be surprised that the 2nd amendment ISN'T cut and dried ALSO isn't arguing in good faith.

Which is the point I was making. These other people are pretending it is cut and dry it is not.


So you are admitting that you do not argue in good faith?
 
2012-07-30 12:54:35 PM  

Corvus: BeesNuts: Anyone arguing that the 2nd is cut and dried isn't arguing in good faith. Anyone arguing that we should all be surprised that the 2nd amendment ISN'T cut and dried ALSO isn't arguing in good faith.

Which is the point I was making. These other people are pretending it is cut and dry it is not.


Which part of the 2nd amendment isn't "cut and dry" as you put it? What can be regulated or whether the people have a right to bear arms?
 
2012-07-30 01:12:57 PM  

pdkl95: StoneColdAtheist: So, I take it you don't have an issue with the right to own fully-automatic assault rifles?

No issue at all, though they are a pretty stupid purchase for most people. Big, inaccurate gun that eats through your walletammo in seconds? why would you waste your money?

More to the point: it's a delusion to think that, for example, the full-auto M-16 is any more dangerous than the civilian, semi-auto AR-15. It's not like you're going to hit much more by spraying bullets wildly, and anybody who really wants the full-auto can convert it trivially.

It's bad security to believe in delusions, and allowing full-auto isn't just constitutional, it's also being realistic about what's out there in reality.


Okay, fair enough. I wasn't completely clear on where you were going with that post (being past my bedtime might be an excuse...drinking was not ;)). Here in California the State is going completely nutso over "scarey black guns", which I would find hilarious if it were not so unconstitutional and counterproductive.
 
2012-07-30 01:47:22 PM  

BeesNuts: For 200 years we've been constantly changing and reinterpreting and revisiting the second amendment.


That's not true. For the most part, it was accepted as read from the 18th Century all the way through the first half of the 20th Century. It was only post-WWII that the idea that it was collectivist in nature really gained any ground. Even the 1939 Miller Supreme Court case was decided on the assumption that the right is an individual one unconnected with actual service in the militia, just that the weapons protected by the Second Amendment have to have some reasonable military utility so that they can be used by the militia when called up (bearing their private arms).
 
2012-07-30 01:51:54 PM  

Duke Phillips' Singing Bears: Are we STILL doing this? Seriously guys. Debates over. Guns won. Sometimes that means a bunch of us will get killed by someone packing way too much heat. Price we pay. Get over it. It's not like if they were better regulated we'd be immortal anyway. This just means some of us may get to die in horrible pain with a bullet lodged in our spine. Can't change it.


Not without starting a war that you really, really don't want to start.

At some point you have to resign yourself to the fact that all freedoms come with a cost, and sometimes that cost is in human lives. Of course, lack of freedom also has costs that are incurred, so really, you're damned if you do, and damned if you don't.
 
2012-07-30 02:20:48 PM  

dittybopper: Even the 1939 Miller Supreme Court case was decided on the assumption that the right is an individual one unconnected with actual service in the militia, just that the weapons protected by the Second Amendment have to have some reasonable military utility so that they can be used by the militia when called up (bearing their private arms).


This is why I always thought it was funny for gun control groups to use Miller as a gun control case. The court focused entirely on the weapon he possessed and not on him, which is strange for them to do if the court was expressing the idea that individuals do not have a right to bear arms. If there's no right to bear arms, the arm in question is irrelevant.

The court said "In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument."

This is big in my opinion. i suggests that all they needed was someone to show that short barrel shotguns WERE useful in militia service AND it could easily be interpreted to say that the 2nd explicitly protects militia arms and not merely those useful for hunting and self-defense.

At best, from a gun control perspective, this is a pathetically weak decision in favor of gun control despite the fact that the government was unopposed. Miller was dead and his lawyer a no-show. Even more interesting, the government put forward the idea that the 2nd amendment did indeed protect an individual right to possess arms, just no this particular class.
 
2012-07-30 02:47:46 PM  
Remember, unless you're a constitutional purist, you're wrong.

Because we should be going back to the days of medical leaching, slaves, needing a gun to protect your farm from poachers and wild animals, and giving the natives diseases and alcohol.
 
2012-07-30 02:51:24 PM  

keithgabryelski: This fits with the current N.R.A.'s talking points: "The AK-47 is the musket of today" -- they say.


[citation needed] because according to google, you're the only person who's ever said that.
 
2012-07-30 02:56:27 PM  

Pincy: You are comparing apples to oranges here but I'll play along. Seeing as it was perfectly legal for GWB to create "Free Speech Zones" and fence in protestors then I would say it is perfectly legal to restrict guns to shooting ranges, call them "Free Fire Zones" if you will.


GWB created "Free Speech Zones"? Did he use his time machine when he did that?
 
2012-07-30 03:01:11 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: How so? You may disagree with Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd, but his position wtr to arms above hunting rifles is certainly consistent with the Founding Fathers' explicit intent. They literally wanted the people (as in, We the People...) to be able to wage war on a toe-to-toe basis with invaders and tyrants, INCLUDING their own government.That fact may be inconvenient to many today, but it is also undeniably true.

That's rather speculative, and it's just as possible that the Founding Fathers also didn't intend, or for that matter could not fathom concepts like rocket launchers being in the hands of citizenry.

I disagree. My point was not only not speculative, but there is a great body of historical research, papers and books to support it. SCOTUS touched on several of those sources in Heller.


Examples? Bonus: where it says it's OK for citizens to own extremely dangerous devices like rocket launchers.

FWIW, the Founders could not have envisioned the internet, either, but the law and society certainly extend the rights of the 1st to that medium. If it's good enough for the 1st, drawing a 'new technology' line for the 2nd seems a real stretch to me.

That's a bit of a false analogy.
 
2012-07-30 03:34:27 PM  
Am I the only one here who read that article, and thought it was pretty clear that Scalia thought they should be illegal, but the justification would have to be done very carefully?
 
2012-07-30 03:43:26 PM  

whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: My point was not only not speculative, but there is a great body of historical research, papers and books to support it. SCOTUS touched on several of those sources in Heller.

Examples? Bonus: where it says it's OK for citizens to own extremely dangerous devices like rocket launchers.

Examples?

Start with Section 1. (a) through (e). Then read the background material.

I already covered logical extensions of then-existing technology and why they're supported. The rocket launcher dog won't hunt.

FWIW, the Founders could not have envisioned the internet, either, but the law and society certainly extend the rights of the 1st to that medium. If it's good enough for the 1st, drawing a 'new technology' line for the 2nd seems a real stretch to me.

That's a bit of a false analogy.


Demonstrate why you think so. A counter-analogy, perhaps? Look face the facts. The courts and history support my conclusions. We may not like those conclusions, but to deny them is to engage in intellectual sophistry.

And you're better than that...or you wouldn't be favorite green #3. :^)
 
2012-07-30 03:49:52 PM  

kyoryu: Am I the only one here who read that article, and thought it was pretty clear that Scalia thought they should be illegal, but the justification would have to be done very carefully?


You could read it either way, which is how he intended it. He isn't going to telegraph how he'd rule on something like that, though I'm pretty sure he'd say it wasn't protected, because it's a destructive device under NFA rules.
 
2012-07-30 04:16:11 PM  

robrr2003: keithgabryelski: This fits with the current N.R.A.'s talking points: "The AK-47 is the musket of today" -- they say.

[citation needed] because according to google, you're the only person who's ever said that.


i'm an idiot -- i meant AR15 -- i was having this chat with a friend who is a gun enthusiast and we bounced between talking about different types of weapons (and I had a brain fart when I typed that).
 
2012-07-30 04:32:09 PM  

StoneColdAtheist: whidbey: StoneColdAtheist: My point was not only not speculative, but there is a great body of historical research, papers and books to support it. SCOTUS touched on several of those sources in Heller.

Examples? Bonus: where it says it's OK for citizens to own extremely dangerous devices like rocket launchers.

Examples? Start with Section 1. (a) through (e). Then read the background material.



Would you please summarize the point? I read a-e, and it uses the term "firearm."

So a rocket launcher is a firearm now?

I already covered logical extensions of then-existing technology and why they're supported. The rocket launcher dog won't hunt.

I'm not seeing where there would be anything that would counter a ban on rocket launchers for citizens, or at the very least, heavy regulation.


FWIW, the Founders could not have envisioned the internet, either, but the law and society certainly extend the rights of the 1st to that medium. If it's good enough for the 1st, drawing a 'new technology' line for the 2nd seems a real stretch to me.

That's a bit of a false analogy.

Demonstrate why you think so. A counter-analogy, perhaps? Look face the facts. The courts and history support my conclusions. We may not like those conclusions, but to deny them is to engage in intellectual sophistry.


I'm pointing out that we're talking about dangerous weapons. Not technology in general. The Internet is not a dangerous weapon. It is a repository of information and a means of communication.

The two have nothing to do with each other. It is a false analogy.

And you're better than that...or you wouldn't be favorite green #3. :^)

Thanks. :)

But I do not believe "the right to bear arms" is unlimited or universal.

This is why we have the Courts to interpret the 2nd Amendment, and, going back to my original point, with this in mind, Scalia is making some very disturbing irresponsible statements inappropriate of a person in that kind of power.
 
2012-07-30 04:32:44 PM  

zarberg: Remember, unless you're a constitutional purist, you're wrong.


Because not being able to read the written word is the sign of a great intellect?

The constitution is a living document in the sense that it is open to every generation for revision, not that its meaning magically changes because because the old words are inconvenient to your current political agenda.

It has been revised to deal with Slavery, Women's rights, Citizenship and even term limits. That is the proper way to do things.
...but some people don't feel like going to all that trouble because they know what they want is against the public will and unjustified.

Avoiding the established protocol to invent your own rules is the kind of Tyranny the constitution was laid out to prevent.
 
2012-07-30 04:37:15 PM  

whidbey: The Internet is not a dangerous weapon.


dl.dropbox.com

I know a few dictators that might disagree with that...
 
2012-07-30 04:38:03 PM  

way south: whidbey: The Internet is not a dangerous weapon.

[dl.dropbox.com image 480x345]

I know a few dictators that might disagree with that...


You do, huh?
 
2012-07-30 06:04:25 PM  

whidbey: I'm pointing out that we're talking about dangerous weapons. Not technology in general. The Internet is not a dangerous weapon. It is a repository of information and a means of communication.

The two have nothing to do with each other. It is a false analogy.


I guess we'll have to disagree then, as I think the analogy is perfectly cromulentapt. Because not only are both examples comparable extensions into unforeseen territory from the original clauses, but because the Founders explicitly wanted an armed society capable of defending itself from tyranny. Quibbling over whether an RPG is a "firearm" is a red herring.

Besides, Qaddafi, ben Ali and Mubarak would all take exception to your claim that "(t)he Internet is not a dangerous weapon."

But I do not believe "the right to bear arms" is unlimited or universal.

To be honest I haven't seen anyone here suggest it is, other than at least half in jest..."I want mah backpack nukulizer!"

This is why we have the Courts to interpret the 2nd Amendment, and, going back to my original point, with this in mind, Scalia is making some very disturbing irresponsible statements inappropriate of a person in that kind of power.

Rights are not absolute (a point Scalia made, btw...), but that doesn't mean that he's being irresponsible to argue intellectually that "keep and bear" arms implies the right to the full panoply of modern infantry weapons, including grenades, RPGs and light machine guns (my words, not his). Or are you arguing that the 2nd applies solely to "firearms"? What about bayonets? Or helmets, flack jackets, etc? How about NVGs, walkie-talkies, face paint and camo gear?

Or maybe he was just trolling us to see if there is interest in further defining the 2nd. Wouldn't that be a biatch?
 
2012-07-30 06:52:33 PM  

Farker Soze: See, no intelligence in that post at all, yet you're named intelligent comment below. Oh, so ironic. You must be proud.

Now go drink a case of PBR and pass out lying on your back so you asphyxiate you worthless sod. That would really be ironic.



Why would there be intelligence in a post replying to you when all you could do was mock and insult me without ever addressing one thing I said?

Now you're saying I should die? See I was right, you are an emotional knee jerk disaster of a person who adds nothing to society. Seek mental help before you go Aurora on some people too.
 
2012-07-30 06:54:42 PM  

pedrop357: Scerpes: That's absolute nonsense. Background checks make it more difficult for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

In theory yes, in reality no.



Speeding laws don't work because some people still speed.

So we should get rid of speeding laws

That's some sound logic there, Lou
 
2012-07-30 07:13:55 PM  

intelligent comment below: Farker Soze: See, no intelligence in that post at all, yet you're named intelligent comment below. Oh, so ironic. You must be proud.

Now go drink a case of PBR and pass out lying on your back so you asphyxiate you worthless sod. That would really be ironic.


Why would there be intelligence in a post replying to you when all you could do was mock and insult me without ever addressing one thing I said?

Now you're saying I should die? See I was right, you are an emotional knee jerk disaster of a person who adds nothing to society. Seek mental help before you go Aurora on some people too.


It's your choice, I would never harm you myself, but certainly the world wouldn't mind if you did.

Hey, I have a great idea! Why don't you buy a gun and shoot yourself with it. People would be all like "icb didn't like guns, in fact they made his micro-peen turtle up even smaller than normal at the thought of one, but he bought and killed himself with a gun! Wow, that's the height of irony. He truly was a hipster God. The world will surely miss... well no one will miss icb, but he sure showed us non-shaggy haircut having non pre-scuffed jeans wearing regular frame glasses wearing mainstreamers a thing or two." Yes, you showed us, showed us what a moron you are, but still, you showed us.
 
2012-07-30 07:46:34 PM  

Corvus: According to his originalism, if a weapon can be hand-held, though, it probably still falls under the right o "bear arms":

WALLACE: What about... a weapon that can fire a hundred shots in a minute?

SCALIA: We'll see. Obviously the Amendment does not apply to arms that cannot be hand-carried - it's to keep and "bear," so it doesn't apply to cannons - but I suppose here are hand-held rocket launchers that can bring down airplanes, that will have to be decided.

WALLACE: How do you decide that if you're a textualist?

SCALIA: Very carefully. [Translation: I pretend whatever I want is what the "true interpretation of the is]

This shiat is ridiculous bad!!

A) He is reading into a distinction that he made up that's not actually there in the text.
B) THEN HE CONTRADICTS THAT DISTINCTION IMMEDIATELY!!!

This guy is horrible he wen, "Oh shiat the rule I made up I don't like when it's generalized. I know it's time to pretend another distinction exists but I don't know how I can make it up yet."

This guy is horrible judge. He makes shiat up and then he is inconsistent with the shiat he makes up.


You're right. Let's stop funding his tenure and choose an arbiter that doesn't hire such imbecilic judicial officers.
 
2012-07-30 08:00:56 PM  

Farker Soze: It's your choice, I would never harm you myself, but certainly the world wouldn't mind if you did.



Wow, you are that delusional you pretend to speak for the world?

And you have no idea who I am, that's even more pathetic


Farker Soze: Hey, I have a great idea! Why don't you buy a gun and shoot yourself with it. People would be all like "icb didn't like guns, in fact they made his micro-peen turtle up even smaller than normal at the thought of one, but he bought and killed himself with a gun! Wow, that's the height of irony. He truly was a hipster God. The world will surely miss... well no one will miss icb, but he sure showed us non-shaggy haircut having non pre-scuffed jeans wearing regular frame glasses wearing mainstreamers a thing or two." Yes, you showed us, showed us what a moron you are, but still, you showed us.



Yep, you're a lunatic alright. Go take your meds and seek some professional help.
 
2012-07-30 08:03:29 PM  

intelligent comment below: pedrop357: Scerpes: That's absolute nonsense. Background checks make it more difficult for convicted felons to purchase firearms.

In theory yes, in reality no.


Speeding laws don't work because some people still speed.

So we should get rid of speeding laws fast cars.


Fixed to make a better analogy to what is happening.
We are trying to alter behavior by altering objects rather than mindsets.

The result is failure because humans are smart enough to get around bans.
 
2012-07-30 08:05:42 PM  

way south: Fixed to make a better analogy to what is happening.
We are trying to alter behavior by altering objects rather than mindsets.

The result is failure because humans are smart enough to get around bans.



Only fast cars can go past the speed limit? I learn something new every day on fark

Bans are not designed to stop 100%, they are designed to stop as much as possible. Your thinking is because a law can't stop 100% then it is worthless. That is a horrible way to look at any law. The speeding analogy is a perfect example of this.
 
2012-07-30 08:11:50 PM  

intelligent comment below: And you have no idea who I am, that's even more pathetic


Heh, you're kind of a big deal, aren't you?

farking retard.
 
2012-07-30 08:16:12 PM  

intelligent comment below: Bans are not designed to stop 100%, they are designed to stop as much as possible.


Bang up job on the marijuana and coke bans there, Ariel. If those were any more effective market saturation would be 120%.
 
2012-07-30 08:19:43 PM  

Farker Soze: intelligent comment below: And you have no idea who I am, that's even more pathetic

Heh, you're kind of a big deal, aren't you?

farking retard.



A much bigger deal than you, that's for sure. But then again so is a homeless person

Are you skullkrusher's twin brother?


Farker Soze: intelligent comment below: Bans are not designed to stop 100%, they are designed to stop as much as possible.

Bang up job on the marijuana and coke bans there, Ariel. If those were any more effective market saturation would be 120%.



Not even close to similar. Drugs are smuggled into America, guns are not.
 
2012-07-30 08:31:55 PM  

intelligent comment below: A much bigger deal than you, that's for sure. But then again so is a homeless person

Are you skullkrusher's twin brother?


Touch a nerve, did I? Hey, you hang out at out of the way bars listening to underground music with your thrift-store shopping friends, but I DON'T KNOW YOU! You're special and unique!


intelligent comment below: Bans are not designed to stop 100%, they are designed to stop as much as possible.

Bang up job on the marijuana and coke bans there, Ariel. If those were any more effective market saturation would be 120%.

Not even close to similar. Drugs are smuggled into America, guns are not.


No one ever grew marijuana in America before or after it was banned? If guns were banned, unlike hemp before it, no one would even consider smuggling them into the country? You got me, flawless logic as usual. You truly are an intelligent commentator.
 
2012-07-30 08:43:34 PM  

Farker Soze: No one ever grew marijuana in America before or after it was banned? If guns were banned, unlike hemp before it, no one would even consider smuggling them into the country? You got me, flawless logic as usual. You truly are an intelligent commentator.



Drug cartels earn 70% of their profits from marijuana, most is the states is grown in national parks by illegals.

Drugs are a lot harder to track and legislate than weapons. Guns are also far more difficult to smuggle into America through customs than drugs.

Nobody here even has the position of banning weapons in the first place, your argument is desperate and typical of a simple minded fool.

You might be better comparing medical marijuana laws to guns. But that would invalidate your argument so you would rather build the strawman of banning guns = banning drugs

Your logic sounds legit. I bow to your superior intellect. Now go Aurora some movie theater in a fit of rage
 
2012-07-30 08:57:16 PM  

intelligent comment below: Farker Soze: No one ever grew marijuana in America before or after it was banned? If guns were banned, unlike hemp before it, no one would even consider smuggling them into the country? You got me, flawless logic as usual. You truly are an intelligent commentator.


Drug cartels earn 70% of their profits from marijuana, most is the states is grown in national parks by illegals.

Drugs are a lot harder to track and legislate than weapons. Guns are also far more difficult to smuggle into America through customs than drugs.

Drugs need to be constantly smuggled in, because they get used up. Guns need a fraction of the traffic because they last a long, long time.

Nobody here even has the position of banning weapons in the first place, your argument is desperate and typical of a simple minded fool.

You might be better comparing medical marijuana laws to guns. But that would invalidate your argument so you would rather build the strawman of banning guns = banning drugs

Your logic sounds legit. I bow to your superior intellect. Now go Aurora some movie theater in a fit of rage


But you're the one who brought up bans are to how much they supposedly stop... you know, I'm just not feeling it, this is getting boring. Your idea for a douchebag opinionated hipster alt was nice, skullz, but you can do better. So, I accept your bow and will take my leave. But really, kill yourself.
 
2012-07-30 09:27:37 PM  

Farker Soze: But you're the one who brought up bans are to how much they supposedly stop... you know, I'm just not feeling it, this is getting boring. Your idea for a douchebag opinionated hipster alt was nice, skullz, but you can do better. So, I accept your bow and will take my leave. But really, kill yourself.



Brought up what? drugs? Banning all guns?

I brought up none of the above.

The fact that you are comparing something that can easily be grown in a home environment to mass production of guns just shows your level of intellect.

And now its back to wishing me to die, you are a sociopath who needs to seek help asap because you are on the brink of an Aurora.

One of me is worth more than a thousand of you to society. You are a nothing, a nobody, and you always will be. Maybe that's what drives you in your insanity and desire to feel important by owning weapons.
 
2012-07-30 09:35:09 PM  
Seriously, skull, this alt sucks. You should be ashamed. Kill it dead.
 
2012-07-30 10:02:18 PM  

Farker Soze: Kill it dead.


How do so many Farkers have this Spidey sense about who's an alt around here?
Is it an art form?
 
2012-07-30 10:10:29 PM  

way south: The result is failure because humans are smart enough to get around bans.


Yep, if the cartels can drive truckloads of drugs up here, they could easily drive truckloads of weapons up here, too. Even if they couldn't get weapons from the USA, they have enough money to buy them in Asia or Africa and ship them in.

I hate to tell the anti-gun crowd this, because their little heads might detonate, but...guns aren't going anywhere. There is no way to make them all disappear. Even if they were completely outlawed tomorrow, they would still be with us. Your average law abiding citizen might turn theirs in. Or, they might bury them in the ground, hide them in the walls or conceal them who-knows-where.

And unless people are willing to suspend the 4th Amendment, there's no way any law enforcement agency could collect them all. They would literally have to go to everyone's house, tear up the walls, floors and ceilings and dig up the backyards. Not every firearm in the US has a paper trail attached to it. Private individuals buy and trade guns without paperwork all the time, so there's no telling who owns a firearm.
 
2012-07-30 10:11:50 PM  

whidbey: Farker Soze: Kill it dead.

How do so many Farkers have this Spidey sense about who's an alt around here?
Is it an art form?


Also, Jakevol2, right? Come on, it has to be. Same diction, same phrases even. My spider pedipalp is tingling.
 
2012-07-30 10:19:57 PM  

intelligent comment below: Only fast cars can go past the speed limit? I learn something new every day on fark


Well that's kind of the point, isn't it...

The problem isn't about speed but about where and how speed is used. In the end some people will still find ways to drive recklessly.
Banning a fast car does nothing for when a senior plows into a farmers market. It doesn't stop a teenager from being stupid.
The obvious way to deal with that is to raise the penalties and take away privileges from risky drivers, but that isn't what you plan to do.
You came to My garage with a wrench...

intelligent comment below: Bans are not designed to stop 100%, they are designed to stop as much as possible. Your thinking is because a law can't stop 100% then it is worthless.


Madmen are not stopped by limiting access to weapons. They find other outlets to do their damage. They tune their attacks to match the equipment at hand. They might avoid wading into the crowd and go back to the old clock tower method. Deprived of a gun, they'll use other things like bombs or poison gas. We've had mad bombers get away with injuring dozens of people for decades. We've had people pull off biological attacks. Madmen aren't stumped just because you stopped manufacturing one component of their plan.

So the law isn't stopping 100%, or 50%, or 10%.
If it hasn't caught the madman, it hasn't done anything yet.

...and for the benefit of nothing you keep stuffing your hands under my cars bonnet to unhook shiat, and then look at me as if I'm the oddball when I get irate about that.

You are asking for an extraordinary sacrifice from gun owners, who have given up quite a bit already, so you had better provide some extraordinary evidence that it will be worth it.
You need to demonstrate how a gun ban brings a madman to justice.
 
2012-07-30 11:41:19 PM  

buckler: Farker Soze: buckler: Do these guys ever acknowledge the "militia" predicate to the right as stated?

Doesn't matter. It could state "Tin roof sundae being the tastiest of all ice cream, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." and the meaning wouldn't change.

It's where I get sort of knotted up about the whole thing. If a man wanted to put meat on the family table back then, he needed a gun (or maybe not, if he was a trapper), or his family could just cultivate a couple acres and have all the veggies and fruit they wanted to eat. At the time, though, without a standing army, it was up to every household to participate in local defense, so every teen boy and man was expected to own a gun for the purpose of participating in the local, "well-regulated" militia, who would be expected to turn out and drill regularly under the command of the local militia leader. In that case, no man could be denied the right to bear arms, because each man was an integral part of community defense, and that couldn't be denied him.

I just don't think they ever could have envisioned drug wars and cartels, drive-bys, theater shooting maniacs, the NRA, cross-border gun sales stings, no-knock warrant shooting mistakes, and all manner of such idiocy we're seeing today.


You may want to read the earlier drafts of the Second Amendment. Three consecutive drafts, starting with the second to be drafted and the first to be actually brought before Congress for debate, expressly defined "Militia" in these words:

"A well regulated Militia composed of the Body of the People being the best security of a free State..."

That boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason onlybecause it was considered redundant! Everyone knew what the word "Militia" meant!

Nabb1, Gyrfalcon, Corvus, GAT_00, way south, s2s2s2, intelligent comment below, MithrandirBooga, vygramul, Danack, Fail in Human Form, RyogaM, odinsposse, Fark It, whidbey, Adolph Oliver Nipples, Mikey1969, 2wolves, et al, you may also be interested in this aspect of the debate.
 
2012-07-31 12:03:51 AM  

COMALite J: That boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only ― because it was considered redundant! Everyone knew what the word "Militia" meant!



It was the people defending the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Those people are now the national guard, police force, and other law enforcement. They cannot be disarmed by a government who wishes to rule over its people by force.
 
2012-07-31 12:08:02 AM  

intelligent comment below: COMALite J: That boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only ― because it was considered redundant! Everyone knew what the word "Militia" meant!


It was the people defending the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Those people are now the national guard, police force, and other law enforcement. They cannot be disarmed by a government who wishes to rule over its people by force.


Soldiers on the government payroll need a right to keep and bear arms just in case the government disarms them?
 
2012-07-31 12:28:57 AM  

way south: intelligent comment below: COMALite J: That boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only ― because it was considered redundant! Everyone knew what the word "Militia" meant!


It was the people defending the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Those people are now the national guard, police force, and other law enforcement. They cannot be disarmed by a government who wishes to rule over its people by force.

Soldiers on the government payroll need a right to keep and bear arms just in case the government disarms them?



Yes, so a federal government cannot disarm the states and enforce their power over each
 
2012-07-31 12:32:50 AM  

way south: Madmen are not stopped by limiting access to weapons.



You can't stop everyone, but you can severely limit the ability to own destructive weapons just like you can limit explosives.

You can feel free to compare gun violence in England to America and then tell me all about how gun violence doesn't go down with restrictions on ownership or outright bans.
 
2012-07-31 12:33:59 AM  

Farker Soze: Seriously, skull, this alt sucks. You should be ashamed. Kill it dead.



Who said alt?

I said skullkrusher's twin brother

Is there something more to this story you want to share with Fark?

It seems like a Freudian slip
 
2012-07-31 12:49:18 AM  

intelligent comment below: way south: Madmen are not stopped by limiting access to weapons.


You can't stop everyone, but you can severely limit the ability to own destructive weapons just like you can limit explosives.


You keep saying it, I want proof.
Show me a place where a gun ban noticeably decreased incidents of rampage murder.
 
2012-07-31 12:59:57 AM  

intelligent comment below: Yes, so a federal government cannot disarm the states and enforce their power over each


Which may be correct if it wasn't against the Supreme courts interpretation of the 2nd, title ten, and the fourteenth amendment.
 
2012-07-31 01:15:17 AM  

way south: intelligent comment below: way south: Madmen are not stopped by limiting access to weapons.


You can't stop everyone, but you can severely limit the ability to own destructive weapons just like you can limit explosives.

You keep saying it, I want proof.
Show me a place where a gun ban noticeably decreased incidents of rampage murder.



Uhh did you not notice crime going down after the Brady Bill in the 80s? And what about England?


way south: intelligent comment below: Yes, so a federal government cannot disarm the states and enforce their power over each

Which may be correct if it wasn't against the Supreme courts interpretation of the 2nd, title ten, and the fourteenth amendment.



Who cares? They think money is speech and corporations are people
 
2012-07-31 11:55:11 AM  
He's not trying to keep a nation armed, he is interpreting the laws against the constitution. There is no political agenda. While I understand that no person can be completely unbiased, his job is to draw logical conclusions from the literal text of the constitution, not to make the laws. Very disappointing, Think Progress.
 
2012-07-31 12:07:56 PM  

intelligent comment below: Uhh did you not notice crime going down after the Brady Bill in the 80s? And what about England?


There are so many reasons why you're on my moron list, but this sort of thing may very well earn you the gold.

I'm unaware of any Brady Bill passing in the 80s. The closest I find is one in 1993.
 
2012-07-31 03:20:07 PM  

intelligent comment below: COMALite J: That boldfaced part was removed from the final version for one reason, and one reason only ― because it was considered redundant! Everyone knew what the word "Militia" meant!

It was the people defending the nation from enemies foreign and domestic. Those people are now the national guard, police force, and other law enforcement. They cannot be disarmed by a government who wishes to rule over its people by force.


Wrong. It didn't say, "composed of some of the People," nor "composed of [a / some] special designated group[s] of the People. It very explicitly, clearly, and plainly said, "composed of the Body of the People." That meant all of them. Sorry, but that's what it said, and that's what it meant.

It did provide an exception preventing the compulsion of "religiously scrupulous" (e.g. Quakers and others religiously opposed to military combat) from having to bear arms in the first such draft, but the second modified that exception and no longer absolved them of not only the Right, but the duty and responsibility, to keep and bear Arms. It only said that they could not be compelled to render military service in person. That draft (and the next one, which differed only in punctuation) made it clear that they were still to keep Arms, apparently to make available to those willing to fight should they run out of ammo, as a reserve.

You can rationally argue that the Second Amendment may be outdated, have served its purpose, be a net liability to society these days (does more harm than good), etc. Fine. Just get ⅔ (²/₃) of each of the U.S. House of Representatives and the U.S. Senate, and then ¾ of the States, to agree with you.

But you can not rationally argue that the Second Amendment says nor means anything other than what it very clearly says and meant in the grammar and idiom of the day. Also, read the actual debates on the various versions submitted to Congress, by the actual Framers. They're freely available on the Internet.

Were it worded in modern grammar and idiom, it would read something like:

"Because a well-armed-and-equipped populace is necessary to the security of a free civilization, the inherent and unalienable right of the people to keep and bear hand-wieldable weaponry, and the ammunition and other accessories needed for same, shall not be infringed."

pedrop357 already smacked down your comment about crime going down after the Brady Bill in the 80s, but here's some more info for ya:

Q. What is the grand total number of bullets aimed and fired at human targets in all five of the Top Five (by body count) Mass Murders on U.S. soil in all of U.S. history (including the wordst-ever school massacre, whose body count equaled the combined total of Columbine and Virginia Tech!), all combined ?

A. Zero! None! Zip! Nada! Zilch! In fact, most of them didn't even involve weapons, at least by Michael Moore's definition of the term (a device designed and manufactured specifically to harm or kill).

Don't believe me?

• #1: 9/11. Thousands dead. "Weapons": Jetliners, jet fuel, boxcutters.

• #2: Oklahoma City. Hundreds dead. "Weapons": fertilizer in a panel van.

• #3: Happy Land Night Club arson in NYC, early 1980s. 81 dead. "Weapon": gasoline. Fire was set by the jilted boyfriend of a female employee.

• #4: Bath School Massacre of Bath, WI., May 1927. 45 dead (= Columbine + Virginia Tech), mostly grade-school children. 55-year-old Andrew Kehoe wired the school with dynamite. The initial explosion in teh elementary wing blew the wires to the detonators secondary wing, or the death toll would've been much higher. Kehoe did fire one bullet, but not at any person: he fired it at his final bomb in his own trick, milling himself, the superintendent of schools whom he so hated (he'd waved him over to his trick, pretending to be just another concerned citizen), and several more children including a six-year-old boy who'd been wounded in the initial blast but managed to stagger out of the building and to the parking lot. "Weapon": dynamite (not considered designed specifically to harm or kill).

• #5: Airliner explosion in the 1960s, that led to the first serious airline security procedures. 45 dead (matching #4, but I put it higher because its victims were mostly kids). Explosives in luggage planted by man who took out a life insurance policy on his mother whom he hated who was traveling on the plane. Weapon: explosives made into time bomb.

Oh, and when the weapon used to kill is not taken into account (and really, does it matter? The victims are just as dead regardless!), the USA is not #1 in homicides.

Nor are we #2.
Nor are we #3.
Nor are we in the Top Five.
Nor are we in the Top Ten.
Nor are we even in the Top Twenty.

We only barely make the Top Twenty-Five! (#24, to be precise, according to NationMaster)

The problem is people killing other people, not how they do it.


Farker Soze: intelligent comment below:

I get it. It's an ironic Fark Login.

I hate hipsters.

Farker Soze: Hey look another idiot gun nut who has no argument based on anything but knee jerk emotions

See, no intelligence in that post at all, yet you're named intelligent comment below. Oh, so ironic. You must be proud.

You do realize that "below" doesn't necessarily mean "immediately below," right? ;-)
 
2012-07-31 04:38:59 PM  

COMALite J: Oh, and when the weapon used to kill is not taken into account (and really, does it matter? The victims are just as dead regardless!), the USA is not #1 in homicides.

Nor are we #2.
Nor are we #3.
Nor are we in the Top Five.
Nor are we in the Top Ten.
Nor are we even in the Top Twenty.



THIS is what is wrong with the gun control groups' myopic focus on guns.

It would be like comparing the number of bar fights in the US vs the number of bar fights in Iran and claiming that banning bars would cut down on violence. Sure, it would cut down on violence in BARS, since bars would be illegal. But would the violence simply move to other locales ie., would there be more violence in restaurants or stores? In the case of the gun argument, would they choose to use other implements to further the exact same violence?
 
2012-07-31 06:49:25 PM  

intelligent comment below: Chimperror2: cessnas fly into big airports too. Rocket launcher unnecessary.


So how long before your kind claims any licenses, background checks, and other policies infringe on your Constitutional right to fly a Cessna?


What kind of background check did you think it takes to jump into a cessna and fly it? You need the key (maybe) and that's about it. ATC doesn't conduct background checks.

They asked for a drivers license and that was about it. Less hassle than buying a gun and I have both. What do you think would happen if a cessna crashed into a terminal of 737's all being refueled? And your worried about whether the pistol can hold 10 or 11 rounds?

You also realize that if the Colorado shooter had 10 round mags, it wouldn't have jammed and there would be more dead people?
 
2012-08-01 05:39:16 AM  

Chimperror2: So how long before your kind claims any licenses, background checks, and other policies infringe on your Constitutional right to fly a Cessna?


1. What constitutional right? It's like driving; it's not a constitutional right.
2. There's not much in the way of licensing required to fly a Cessna. You need a private pilot's license to fly one alone, and there are rules about taking passangers with you if you have a 'private pilot' license - you're not normally allowed to charge more than gas money.
3. A Cessna is a suprisingly ineffective weapon. I've read about Cessna type planes, at least the 'easy' small single engine types, crashing into buildings at least a dozen times. Hint: A Cessna weighs less and is about as fast as a compact car. It's only 'advantage' is being able to hit spots said small car can't, and if you look at 'believe it or not' pictures, you'll find there are situations where you CAN hit the 2nd floor with a car ;). Anways, about the only 'substantial' part of the plane is the engine. Damage on hitting multiple story buildings has historically been pretty much 'messed up the office it hit', and that includes 'middle manager's small office'. Fatalities for building occupants are surprisingly rare for daytime strikes.

Chimperror2 - Crashing into a terminal of refueling 737s would, in my estimation, result in the destruction of maybe ONE 737. Given the type of fuel involved, you might get a fire, but it would be easily containable by the airport fire department. Jet Fuel/Kerosene burns, it doesn't explode. You'd also have to hit one of the wings just right, they're suprisingly tough.

For the record - my policy is to more or less ignore guns. We need to fix our prisons so they actually reform, our schools so they actually educate, our mental health system so it actually helps people, and end the war on drugs so we can afford all of the above.
 
Displayed 401 of 401 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »
On Twitter





In Other Media


  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.

Report