Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny?

Texas Church Shooting: Forget Prayers, Send More Guns: Or else, Tryanny? (Page 9)
Thread Tools
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 5, 2018, 06:10 PM
 
https://www.mediaite.com/online/nra-...n-regulations/

Attn @AnnualMeetings attendees. Steer clear of Ellen’s in downtown Dallas! Why go there when there are so many other great choices. #sorrynotsorry #StandAndFight #DefendTheSecond
Is the NRA saying that it's against "reasonable and effective gun regulations"?

I mean, yes, their action say that, but its never put so plainly
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2018, 08:12 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post

Is the NRA saying that it's against "reasonable and effective gun regulations"?

I mean, yes, their action say that, but its never put so plainly
They are against any gun regulations aren't they?
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2018, 03:20 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
Is the NRA saying that it's against "reasonable and effective gun regulations"?
I think all my policy positions are reasonable and effective. Should I start accusing all who disagree with me of being against reason and efficacy?
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 6, 2018, 06:01 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think all my policy positions are reasonable and effective. Should I start accusing all who disagree with me of being against reason and efficacy?
Look at the tweet. What is the NRA calling a boycott over?
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 11:31 AM
 
Pretend instead the receipt proudly crowed the restaurant donates to organizations who seek to reasonably regulate abortion.

If I boycott this restaurant, does that mean I don’t support reasonable regulation, or that I think the owner’s characterization of the organizations they support is self-serving and full of shit?

It’s the latter.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 12:06 PM
 
How am I supposed to know the restaurants stance on guns is unreasonable?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 12:27 PM
 
Duh, having any stance is unreasonable.
     
Chongo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 01:39 PM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
https://www.mediaite.com/online/nra-...n-regulations/



Is the NRA saying that it's against "reasonable and effective gun regulations"?

I mean, yes, their action say that, but its never put so plainly
Originally Posted by Waragainstsleep View Post
They are against any gun regulations aren't they?
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I think all my policy positions are reasonable and effective. Should I start accusing all who disagree with me of being against reason and efficacy?
Could it be because “reasonable and effective” to some means repealing the 2nd Ammendment and gun confiscation?
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 02:00 PM
 
hyperbole.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 02:29 PM
 
I don't think I'd consider a repeal of the 2nd amendment a gun regulation. That'd be the understatement of the year.
     
Waragainstsleep
Posting Junkie
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: UK
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 07:46 PM
 
The only people who waste their breath talking about gun confiscation are pro gun. This has been the case for at least a decade or so.
I have plenty of more important things to do, if only I could bring myself to do them....
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 07:58 PM
 
Originally Posted by Chongo View Post
Could it be because “reasonable and effective” to some means repealing the 2nd Ammendment and gun confiscation?
Could it be that comments like this one are designed to shut down the discussion on gun control?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 08:52 PM
 
Speaking of guns, it looks like Ollie North will be the next president of the NRA.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 7, 2018, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by Thorzdad View Post
Speaking of guns, it looks like Ollie North will be the next president of the NRA.
Not quite an Onion headline, but close. Guy who thought it was ok to sell guns to people who hate our guts to lead lobbying group concerned with selling as many guns as possible.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 01:09 AM
 
Originally Posted by The Final Dakar View Post
How am I supposed to know the restaurants stance on guns is unreasonable?
Answering this question was the point of my analogy.

If presented with a restaurant who boasts of supporting reasonable abortion regulations on their receipt, do you believe them?
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 01:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If presented with a restaurant who boasts of supporting reasonable abortion regulations on their receipt, do you believe them?
Sure, I do believe them, especially if it is in Texas rather than downtown San Francisco, so it isn't as if they cater to all of the crowd. I think you are being too cynical.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 02:53 AM
 
I want to make sure my question is clear here.

Im asking do you believe the restrictions they support on abortion are likely to be reasonable.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 03:10 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Im asking do you believe the restrictions they support on abortion are likely to be reasonable.
In the end that's not how the abortion debate is framed in the US, pro lifers don't go out and say that “We want reasonable restrictions on abortions!” Most want to ban abortions outright. So I don't think your analogy is very insightful.

The arguments for more gun regulations is much more nuanced, and attempts such as Chongo's to conflate support for more reasonable gun regulations with “wanting to abolish the Second Amendment and kick down doors to pry guns from the hands of honest, law abiding citizens” are failing more and more.

PS I misread your last post, I read reasonable gun regulations rather than reasonable abortion regulations. My bad.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 06:22 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
In the end that's not how the abortion debate is framed in the US, pro lifers don't go out and say that “We want reasonable restrictions on abortions!” Most want to ban abortions outright. So I don't think your analogy is very insightful.
Yes. That’s my point.

People don’t say “I support reasonable restrictions on abortion”, because the statement isn’t generally what one would consider true. IOW, if someone said that, I wouldn’t believe them, and it’s clear why I wouldn’t believe them.

Where this is meant to provide insight is it’s analagous to how the NRA feels about the situation. They don’t believe the restaurant’s claim of reasonableness, which is why they’re boycotting.

This is distinct from the NRA believing it, and boycotting anyway, which is what they were accused of.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 07:48 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Where this is meant to provide insight is it’s analagous to how the NRA feels about the situation. They don’t believe the restaurant’s claim of reasonableness, which is why they’re boycotting.

This is distinct from the NRA believing it, and boycotting anyway, which is what they were accused of.
You are conflating facts with hype and “feelings”: the anti abortion crowd is very different from people who are in favor of stronger gun regulations. The latter spans the gamut, everything from the majority of gun owners to a small portion that would like to see the Second Amendment repealed. But saying that this subgroup is representative of people who are in favor of gun regulations is statistically false, even if some people drank the kool aid and believe this to be true. (They also thought that Obama was going to ring their door bell and have the Secret Service take their guns away.) In contrast opponents to abortion are much more homogeneous.

(Plus, I wouldn't ascribe feelings to the NRA, an organization, and even if you did I am quite sure that their outside persona and what is going on on the inside is quite different.)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 09:28 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You are conflating facts with hype and “feelings”
I’m not conflating the two, the NRA is.

The question was “why did the NRA boycott the restaurant?”

The answer is the NRA does not believe the restaurant’s claim of being reasonable.


I’m using the NRA as shorthand for those responsible for the boycott.
     
andi*pandi
Moderator
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: inside 128, north of 90
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 11:33 AM
 
It's in the NRA interest to spin any gun law to mean revokation of 2cd Amendment. They are spinning it that way on purpose. They are putting fear into the hearts of their members on purpose.

Whether they "believe" the restaurant or not, they don't want to believe, they don't want their members to believe. The slippery slope is what they fear.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 11:39 AM
 
Yes and no.

Poll question:

“If you could substitute the Second Amendment with a more reasonable alternative, would you?”
     
Thorzdad
Moderator
Join Date: Aug 2001
Location: Nobletucky
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 12:38 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Poll question:
“If you could substitute the Second Amendment with a more reasonable alternative, would you?”
Before I'd opt for a substitution, I'd prefer that the first part of the 2nd start being enforced. The part where unfettered gun ownership is predicated on the existence of a "well-regulated militia."
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 8, 2018, 02:56 PM
 
I personally think that’s the correct interpretation, but since it’s ambiguous, it’d have to be rewritten to make it stick.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2018, 10:42 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“If you could substitute the Second Amendment with a more reasonable alternative, would you?”
Why do you insist to posit these particular hypotheticals? You seem hellbent to ask people whether they are ok with abolishing or changing the Second Amendment. I think the majority of people are ok with what they consider reasonable regulations, and the current main obstacle isn't the Second Amendment but legislators.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 9, 2018, 11:22 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Why do you insist to posit these particular hypotheticals?
Because I’m curious about people’s opinions. What a bizarre question.

Also, hellbent? I don’t recall ever asking it before.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 12, 2018, 06:16 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Answering this question was the point of my analogy.

If presented with a restaurant who boasts of supporting reasonable abortion regulations on their receipt, do you believe them?
The lack of clarity is my point. I don't think the NRA knows the answer. I expect Joe Blow to kneejerk without getting the facts straight. I expect better from a national organization with such a wide audience. Doubly so when they're calling for a boycott from their members.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 07:16 AM
 
The NRA are radicals.

How radical does one have to get before they need to stop double-checking whether they oppose organizations who are opposite from them?

I’m not taking issue with the claim the NRA is unreasonable (they are). I’m taking issue with the claim they are self-aware of how unreasonable they are.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 10:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
I think the majority of people are ok with what they consider reasonable regulations, and the current main obstacle isn't the Second Amendment but legislators.
Many people consider requiring a license to be a reasonable regulation.

No way that’s getting past the Second Amendment as it’s currently interpreted.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 11:27 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
Many people consider requiring a license to be a reasonable regulation.

No way that’s getting past the Second Amendment as it’s currently interpreted.
I think a lot of folks would be fine with mandatory registration and background checks, disallowing private sales and strictly applying these regulations (including smaller things such as digitizing the ATF records and some such). I’d also advocate for regulations regarding safe gun storage (inspired from e. g. the military).

Second Amendment “absolutists” who insist that the Second Amendment allows for no legal regulations of guns (including each of these regulations) may score an own goal in the end and push people who read the Second Amendment differently over the line: if no reasonable restrictions are possible with the Second Amendment, then I think they will end up convincing people that the Second Amendment is the problem. But I don’t think this is necessary. The Supreme Court just needs to reverse the (historically speaking) recent re-interpretation of the Second Amendment all these new verdicts are based on. I think this is much more likely than repealing or amending the Second Amendment — and has much broader support.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 06:23 PM
 
I don’t see a substantive difference between the desire for a different amendment and the desire to have the current interpretation struck down as unconstitutional.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 09:00 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I don’t see a substantive difference between the desire for a different amendment and the desire to have the current interpretation struck down as unconstitutional.
I do think there is a huge substantive difference: most people do not interpret the Second Amendment the way the NRA does and the way that was adopted by the Supreme Court in their most recent decisions. They are ok with people having guns, but they are in favor of a lot more gun regulation. I think this is what the majority of Americans would support.

The idea of repealing or amending the Second Amendment has entered the discussion mostly because the NRA claims that most types of gun regulations are incompatible with the Second Amendment. For most Americans this is definitely Plan B — and much less likely to happen.

In contrast going back to an earlier interpretation of the Second Amendment is not just much easier compared to passing a constitutional amendment, but would also allow the Supreme Court to use a long history of established legal precedent. (Constitutional originalists should be overjoyed!)
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 09:55 PM
 
“I don’t want to change the amendment, just stack the court.”

“I don’t want to drop a bus on you, just a piano.”
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 13, 2018, 10:40 PM
 
To be clear, I’m convinced the Founding Fathers intended for the right to bear arms to be that of the militia, not the people. If I were a judge, that’s how I’d interpret it.

My interpretation would gut the Second Amendment as we know it.

I’m calling for an extreme enough result I’m not going to split hairs over the descriptor being used for what I’m doing unless it somehow implies I’m bearing false witness. If someone wants to accuse me of trying to change the Second Amendment because of my interpretation, the inaccuracy of the charge is a technicality.
( Last edited by subego; May 13, 2018 at 11:06 PM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2018, 12:56 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
“I don’t want to change the amendment, just stack the court.”

“I don’t want to drop a bus on you, just a piano.”
This is not about stacking the courts. And I don't understand how your metaphor applies here.

Nor do I think are the proposals of e. g. having a federal gun registry extreme. I think a lot of them are not in contradiction with the Second Amendment even the way it is interpreted now. Ditto for universal background checks, closing loopholes and making sure that the laws as they are on the books now are consistently and faithfully implemented.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My interpretation would gut the Second Amendment as we know it.
But that would mean returning to the interpretation that the Supreme Court had had from the inception of the United States until the latter half of the 20th century. That's not gutting the Second Amendment.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m calling for an extreme enough result I’m not going to split hairs over the descriptor being used for what I’m doing unless it somehow implies I’m bearing false witness. If someone wants to accuse me of trying to change the Second Amendment because of my interpretation, the inaccuracy of the charge is a technicality.
I don't get what you are trying to say here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
The Final Dakar  (op)
Games Meister
Join Date: Aug 2009
Location: Eternity
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 14, 2018, 08:44 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The NRA are radicals.

How radical does one have to get before they need to stop double-checking whether they oppose organizations who are opposite from them?

I’m not taking issue with the claim the NRA is unreasonable (they are). I’m taking issue with the claim they are self-aware of how unreasonable they are.
Ah, our true-believer divide rears its ugly head again.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 15, 2018, 06:40 AM
 
Wat
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2018, 11:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is not about stacking the courts. And I don't understand how your metaphor applies here.

Nor do I think are the proposals of e. g. having a federal gun registry extreme. I think a lot of them are not in contradiction with the Second Amendment even the way it is interpreted now. Ditto for universal background checks, closing loopholes and making sure that the laws as they are on the books now are consistently and faithfully implemented.

But that would mean returning to the interpretation that the Supreme Court had had from the inception of the United States until the latter half of the 20th century. That's not gutting the Second Amendment.

I don't get what you are trying to say here.
I’ll restate my argument.

What I’m saying is the right of the militia interpretation and the right of the people interpretation are so vastly different, we may as well be talking about two competing amendments. To adopt one interpretation is to destroy the other.

The NRA is incorrectly stating the mechanism of destruction (“you want to get rid of the 2A!”).

Considering the circumstances, it don’t find this relevant.

If I strangle someone to death, am I morally off the hook because my accuser is claiming I disemboweled the victim? I’d say no... I still killed the person.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 16, 2018, 08:49 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
What I’m saying is the right of the militia interpretation and the right of the people interpretation are so vastly different, we may as well be talking about two competing amendments. To adopt one interpretation is to destroy the other.
The big difference is that, to use your words, the current interpretation “destroyed” the long-held interpretation that a good amount of regulations is a-ok. The constitution need not be amended and instead of giving an entirely new, unprecedented interpretation of the Second Amendment, the Supreme Court could more easily and more justifiably go back to an already established interpretation. This is fundamentally different from establishing a new legal principle (such as Roe vs. Wade where a right to abortion was derived from a right to privacy).

I still think calling this “destruction” is fundamentally wrong and misleading, because nothing is destroyed here.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The NRA is incorrectly stating the mechanism of destruction (“you want to get rid of the 2A!”).
The NRA is not just wrong about the mechanism, the NRA is wrong about basic facts here. When the US Supreme Court had a more restrictive interpretation of the Second Amendment, more people had guns in the United States than they do now.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
If I strangle someone to death, am I morally off the hook because my accuser is claiming I disemboweled the victim? I’d say no... I still killed the person.
???
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 02:44 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The big difference is that, to use your words, the current interpretation “destroyed” the long-held interpretation that a good amount of regulations is a-ok.
The big difference? This is exactly what I said. To adopt one is to destroy the other. The limitations the Second Amendment are meant to have as only a right of the militia were destroyed by turning it into a right of the people.

I’m also going to need a citation on this previous Supreme Court determination which supposedly clarified the amendment before Scalia’s ruling. I was only able to find evidence of that interpretation by reading the minutes of the first Congress.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 03:26 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The big difference? This is exactly what I said. To adopt one is to destroy the other. The limitations the Second Amendment are meant to have as only a right of the militia were destroyed by turning it into a right of the people.
You insist on using the word “destroyed”, and I don't think it is apt.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’m also going to need a citation on this previous Supreme Court determination which supposedly clarified the amendment before Scalia’s ruling. I was only able to find evidence of that interpretation by reading the minutes of the first Congress.
This is pretty standard stuff. Have a look at this article which is an extended version of this Politico piece: the turning point was 1977 when the NRA went from supporting gun regulations to the current stance on the Second Amendment. That culminated in the Heller decision which overturned the Miller decision from 1939 that found federal gun regulations to be consistent with the US Constitution.

Chief Justice Burger, a Reagan appointee, is quoted as saying:
Originally Posted by Chief Justice Burger (as quoted in the article)
In 1991, Warren E. Burger, the conservative chief justice of the Supreme Court, was interviewed on the MacNeil/Lehrer NewsHour about the meaning of the Second Amendment's "right to keep and bear arms." Burger answered that the Second Amendment "has been the subject of one of the greatest pieces of fraud—I repeat the word 'fraud'—on the American public by special interest groups that I have ever seen in my lifetime." In a speech in 1992, Burger declared that "the Second Amendment doesn't guarantee the right to have firearms at all." In his view, the purpose of the Second Amendment was "to ensure that the 'state armies'—'the militia'—would be maintained for the defense of the state."
That should give you an idea how the NRA's 1977 swing broke with literally two centuries of legal precedent, and was finally completed with the Heller decision.

You can also have a look at none other than Reagan who was strongly in favor of gun regulations when he was California's governor (to have a legal basis for disarming Black Panthers in the form of the Mulford Act), and who changed his opinion in the late 1970s.

The fact that many conservatives proclaim to be “originalists” yet prefer the later, presumably less original interpretation, adds all the more spice to the discussion.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 04:01 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
You insist on using the word “destroyed”, and I don't think it is apt.
This is the complaint being made here?

Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
The big difference is that, to use your words, the current interpretation “destroyed” the long-held interpretation that a good amount of regulations is a-ok.
This is saying it’s not apt? It’s using the term to make a point. I’m addressing that point.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 04:41 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
This is saying it’s not apt? It’s using the term to make a point. I’m addressing that point.
Nope, it's not apt. As I wrote in the same post:
Originally Posted by OreoCookie
I still think calling this “destruction” is fundamentally wrong and misleading, because nothing is destroyed here.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 05:51 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
Nope, it's not apt. As I wrote in the same post:
I’m asking about what I quoted. It’s why I quoted it.

The quote is accusing me of missing the “big difference”, no? I’m attempting to discuss this big difference, not the descriptor. We can get to the descriptor after addressing the accusation.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 05:52 AM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
This is pretty standard stuff.
I’ll assume it’s not intended, but this comes across as condescending.


The cases the author cites aren’t definitive. At least, the cases I assume he’s citing, since he doesn’t actually cite them. My teachers would have given me an F for that.

United States v. Cruikshank
Presser v. Illinois
United States v. Miller

I don’t know what fourth one he’s talking about.

I have no clue where the author came up with the idea all these cases show the question as decided when none of them do. It doesn’t even come up in the first one.
( Last edited by subego; May 17, 2018 at 06:04 AM. )
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 10:29 AM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
I’ll assume it’s not intended, but this comes across as condescending.
No, that was not my intention.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
The cases the author cites aren’t definitive. At least, the cases I assume he’s citing, since he doesn’t actually cite them. My teachers would have given me an F for that.
Are you mistaking the article for a legal treatise on the subject, perhaps? I'm sure there are plenty of books out there on that, but then we'd just talk out of our collective rear ends — it's not as if we are legal scholars. Once we start down this route, I don't think we will be able to have a productive discussion — not through any fault of our own, just because it requires a level of expertise that both of us lack.

I don't think we need to be to understand that the attitude towards the Second Amendment has changed since the 1970s. This is when (1) the NRA switched to its current Second Amendment stance and (2) endorsed the first (GOP) presidential candidate in the form of Ronald Reagan. The same GOP and the same Reagan who did a 180 on gun control in the same time period.
Originally Posted by subego View Post
United States v. Cruikshank
Presser v. Illinois
United States v. Miller

I have no clue where the author came up with the idea all these cases show the question as decided when none of them do. It doesn’t even come up in the first one.
I am confused as to whether we are reading the same thing: the first two cases reaffirm the right of the states (as opposed to the federal government) to enact gun control legislation (so long as it is consistent with the state's constitution). The Heller decision reverses this as it states that gun ownership is an individual right that states and the gun control legislation enacted by the District of Columbia* therefore violates this right. (* I don't know whether the distinction between proper states and the District of Columbia plays a role, but that does not seem to be the case.)

The last decision affirms the right of the federal government to enact gun control legislation.

What is your position here? You don't think that the Heller decision was a big turning point as far as legal precedents regarding gun control go? Do you think I am mischaracterizing the preeminent (and arguably most relevant) legal interpretation of the Second Amendment?
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 12:52 PM
 
My position is I object to the claim the Supreme Court had decided on the right of the militia vs. right of the people debate before Scalia.

The argument is adopting the militia interpretation would be the Supreme Court returning to an earlier decision. None of these cases made that decision.

It wasn’t decided until the Scalia opinions.
     
OreoCookie
Moderator
Join Date: May 2001
Location: Hilbert space
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 08:52 PM
 
Originally Posted by subego View Post
My position is I object to the claim the Supreme Court had decided on the right of the militia vs. right of the people debate before Scalia.

The argument is adopting the militia interpretation would be the Supreme Court returning to an earlier decision. None of these cases made that decision.

It wasn’t decided until the Scalia opinions.
I think you are wrong here: legal precedent up until then gave states the right to put strong gun regulations in place, because according to the older decisions the Second Amendment only applies to the federal government. Let's make the analogy to free speech: this is akin to saying that the First Amendment only applies to the federal government, but that states are free to curb free speech as they see fit — as long as that doesn't violate the corresponding state constitution.

Heller derived an individual's right to gun ownership from the Second Amendment, just like free speech, that cannot be taken away by the states. That's the reversal: you went from the focus on the militia to an individual, inalienable right. You seem to insist that this wasn't decided until Heller, and you are right: because that wasn't how the Supreme Court saw the matter of gun regulations and the Second Amendment until then. That's the whole point of my argument.
I don't suffer from insanity, I enjoy every minute of it.
     
subego
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Bang! Bang!
Status: Online
Reply With Quote
May 17, 2018, 11:33 PM
 
Originally Posted by OreoCookie View Post
this is akin to saying that the First Amendment only applies to the federal government
This is precisely how the Constitution was written. It didn’t change until after the Civil War and the due process of law clause from the 14th Amendment.

The First Amendment didn’t start applying to the states until a Supreme Court decision made in 1925, and the final clause of the Amendment wasn’t incorporated by the court until 1963.

The first two decisions on my list are from the 19th century, when the First Amendment was likewise wholly subject to the whims of the states.

Those rulings had nothing to do with the question of whether the Amendment is designed to be a right of the people, subject to state law, just like the First Amendment was at that time, or a right of the militia subject to state law.

The Supreme Court did not comment on it definitively until Heller.
( Last edited by subego; May 18, 2018 at 02:15 AM. )
     
 
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:54 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,