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 (1 year ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



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

Archived thread

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all
 
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?
 
Displayed 50 of 401 comments

First | « | 1 | 2 | 3 | 4 | 5 | 6 | 7 | 8 | 9 | » | Last | Show all

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report