Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
3 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,806 Year: 3,063/9,624 Month: 908/1,588 Week: 91/223 Day: 2/17 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control Again

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control Again
Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


Message 181 of 5179 (684230)
12-16-2012 7:32 PM
Reply to: Message 177 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 6:14 PM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Perhaps you would like to show me where I said ANY of that?
Special pleading, straw men, moving goal posts. I'd say that's all very desperate stuff.
Many countries have legislated strongly against guns. The USA can too. Open your eyes.

Life, don't talk to me about life - Marvin the Paranoid Android

This message is a reply to:
 Message 177 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 6:14 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 7:37 PM Tangle has replied
 Message 185 by Jon, posted 12-16-2012 8:09 PM Tangle has not replied
 Message 204 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:02 PM Tangle has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 182 of 5179 (684231)
12-16-2012 7:37 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Tangle
12-16-2012 7:32 PM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Many countries have legislated strongly against guns. The USA can too. Open your eyes.
The Supreme Court has interpreted our constitution in such a way that strong gun laws such as the ones which existed in the District of Columbia and Illinois will be struck down as unconstitutional. There is simply no realistic political path to adopting laws here that match those in the UK.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2012 7:32 PM Tangle has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 233 by Tangle, posted 12-17-2012 3:50 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


Message 183 of 5179 (684232)
12-16-2012 8:04 PM
Reply to: Message 163 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 2:24 PM


Re: Second Amendment
What you say simply means that the document does not reflect the intention of the original drafter. When we refer to the writers, we mean more than just the original drafter.
Too funny. A drafter writes and a writer drafts. Your argument is bullshit.
A secondary issue is that we have amended the constitution many times since the Bill of Rights was enacted.
Again too funny. How many times has the second amendment been changed since originally being adopted?
Dr. A is perfectly correct to refer to the intention of the writers and not just the original drafter as you do here.
And that isn't what he is referring to. Have you even read his post? I give Dr. A more credit than to assume he is making the pointless and evasive distinction between a writer and a drafter.
Have some Christmas spirit...
Jon

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 163 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 2:24 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 8:52 PM Jon has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(1)
Message 184 of 5179 (684233)
12-16-2012 8:06 PM
Reply to: Message 104 by Faith
12-15-2012 6:08 PM


It burns
Yes, the PEOPLE, not an army run by the state, the PEOPLE.
Obviously history is not your strong suit.
To call the Constitution an "iron age text" is to have bought the propaganda that WILL kill this country.
I was talking about your bible.
They intended to protect the individual citizen's right to keep and bear arms, and that IS in the amendment -- the right of the PEOPLE -- it's you who seem to have trouble reading it, and the "militia" refers to this armed citizenry, not to an organized army, which, again, would contradict the whole spirit of the amendment.
Care to provide some cites to any interpretations by the courts that supports this?

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 104 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 6:08 PM Faith has not replied

Jon
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 185 of 5179 (684235)
12-16-2012 8:09 PM
Reply to: Message 181 by Tangle
12-16-2012 7:32 PM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Many countries have legislated strongly against guns. The USA can too. Open your eyes.
Why is anyone even bothering to reply to you?
You are clearly so damned ignorant of the workings of even the most basic aspects of the U.S. legal system that your comments on its ability to control gun ownership are just pointless hogwash.
Get a clue. Then come back and lay out a realistic plan whereby the U.S. could actually enact the kind of gun 'control' found in these other countries whose gun restrictions you so worship.
Jon
Edited by Jon, : No reason given.

Love your enemies!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 181 by Tangle, posted 12-16-2012 7:32 PM Tangle has not replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


(4)
Message 186 of 5179 (684236)
12-16-2012 8:11 PM
Reply to: Message 105 by Faith
12-15-2012 6:16 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
The National Guard is not what the founders had in mind.
It is exactly what they meant. They were not talking about freelance militias. The founders had a fear of anarchy. There are even writings by some of them that support this. The free militias you are talking about are the antithesis of what the founders meant by a well-regulated militia. Well regulated militia implies a militia set up by law. The free militias of the far right of today are not in any way regulated, so that simple fact destroys your argument.
If we want to live by the actually meaning of the founders than the right to bear arms means single shot muzzleloaders. I am fine with people having free access to them.

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 105 by Faith, posted 12-15-2012 6:16 PM Faith has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:13 PM Theodoric has replied

Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 187 of 5179 (684237)
12-16-2012 8:13 PM
Reply to: Message 111 by hooah212002
12-15-2012 6:35 PM


Gish gallop

Facts don't lie or have an agenda. Facts are just facts
"God did it" is not an argument. It is an excuse for intellectual laziness.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 111 by hooah212002, posted 12-15-2012 6:35 PM hooah212002 has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 188 of 5179 (684239)
12-16-2012 8:36 PM
Reply to: Message 143 by RAZD
12-16-2012 9:10 AM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
RAZD, Percy, Dr. A, Theodoric etc. You guys keep answering me as if I were making up what the founders meant. I provided a lot of evidence back in Message 57 about what they meant,
EvC Forum: Gun Control Again
including a long well documented article about the English history that the Second Amendment built on, and about the thinking of the Constitutional framers as they wrote the amendment.
We can misread the documents today because we put current meanings into phrasings that they didn't intend. They were building on a history of which we are today largely ignorant.
Contrary to opinions being expressed here, the National Guard does NOT reflect their thinking.
The "militia" DID comprise "the WHOLE body of the people."
It's unfortunate they didn't leave that specific wording in the final draft but it has to be because they assumed it and not because it didn't reflect their thinking. If you don't read the whole history you are just going to go on making up stuff about what they had in mind.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 143 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 9:10 AM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 191 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 9:06 PM Faith has replied
 Message 194 by Percy, posted 12-16-2012 9:14 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 207 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 10:10 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 210 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 10:19 PM Faith has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 189 of 5179 (684240)
12-16-2012 8:52 PM
Reply to: Message 183 by Jon
12-16-2012 8:04 PM


Re: Second Amendment
Jon writes:
Too funny. A drafter writes and a writer drafts. Your argument is bullshit.
Is that my argument? Nope.
My argument is that the original intent of the second amendment, or any other amendment is not the same as the original intent of the person authoring the first draft. It's pretty clear that Dr. Adequate's point was saying quite the same thing. Dr. Adequate was saying that rejected language may reflect the intent of the author of the rejected language, but that such language is also evidence that such intent was rejected before the amendment was passed.
Quite frankly, Dr. Adequate's point is nothing more than common sense. Not surprisingly, you reject the point.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 183 by Jon, posted 12-16-2012 8:04 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 9:00 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 198 by Jon, posted 12-16-2012 9:53 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 205 by kofh2u, posted 12-16-2012 10:02 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 190 of 5179 (684241)
12-16-2012 9:00 PM
Reply to: Message 189 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 8:52 PM


Re: Second Amendment
My argument is that the original intent of the second amendment, or any other amendment is not the same as the original intent of the person authoring the first draft. It's pretty clear that Dr. Adequate's point was saying quite the same thing. Dr. Adequate was saying that rejected language may reflect the intent of the author of the rejected language, but that such language is also evidence that such intent was rejected before the amendment was passed.
In this case he was talking about the leaving out of the phrase Madison had put into his draft describing the militia as "the body of the people," but that did not reflect only Madison's thinking but was the majority historical understanding of the concept of the "militia" which you could find out if you read the whole history that led up to the Second Amendment that I linked in Message 57.
Edited by Faith, : Add URL

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 189 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 8:52 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 192 by jar, posted 12-16-2012 9:06 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 193 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 9:09 PM Faith has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 191 of 5179 (684242)
12-16-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
12-16-2012 8:36 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Contrary to opinions being expressed here, the National Guard does NOT reflect their thinking.
That may well be correct, but the National Guard is the only modern militia we have left.
The "militia" DID comprise "the WHOLE body of the people."
Your statement is absolutely silent about whether that militia is to be controlled by the state. But as others are pointed out, other portions of the constitution refer to 'the Militia' in terms that make it quite clear that the militia is a state controlled militia and not the rabble (i.e. defenders of Main Street).
It's unfortunate they didn't leave that specific wording in the final draft but it has to be because they assumed it and not because it didn't reflect their thinking. If you don't read the whole history you are just going to go on making up stuff about what they had in mind.
Or perhaps those omissions are not mere bad luck. Perhaps they are meaningful omissions.
We should also note that the drafts of the second amendment also contained wording making even more clear the purpose of the militia. For example some drafts talked about exemptions from the militia for religious views and for conscientious objectors. None of the stuff makes the least bit of sense for a people's militia.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 8:36 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 195 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 9:15 PM NoNukes has replied

jar
Member (Idle past 393 days)
Posts: 34026
From: Texas!!
Joined: 04-20-2004


(4)
Message 192 of 5179 (684243)
12-16-2012 9:06 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
12-16-2012 9:00 PM


The original intent of the Second Amendment is irrelevant.
The original intent of folk that died over 200 years ago is totally irrelevant in this case. What is relevant is that they were smart enough to know that what might be appropriate in the 18th Century might not be appropriate in the 21st Century so they built in ways to change the Constitution.

Anyone so limited that they can only spell a word one way is severely handicapped!

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 9:00 PM Faith has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 193 of 5179 (684244)
12-16-2012 9:09 PM
Reply to: Message 190 by Faith
12-16-2012 9:00 PM


Re: Second Amendment
"the body of the people"
Who cares? 1) That language is not part of the current amendment, and 2) we know the people are going to be in the militia. How could it be otherwise? The question is whether the militia in Georgia is controlled by governor of Georgia or his delegates or not.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison.
If there is no struggle, there is no progress. Those who profess to favor freedom, and deprecate agitation, are men who want crops without plowing up the ground, they want rain without thunder and lightning. Frederick Douglass

This message is a reply to:
 Message 190 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 9:00 PM Faith has not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22388
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.2


Message 194 of 5179 (684245)
12-16-2012 9:14 PM
Reply to: Message 188 by Faith
12-16-2012 8:36 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Faith writes:
RAZD, Percy, Dr. A, Theodoric etc. You guys keep answering me as if I were making up what the founders meant.
I haven't read your founder's quotes, let alone replied to you about them.
My points have been few. The high rate of gun deaths in the US will continue for as long as we have a high level of gun ownership, a fix requires widespread gun ownership to end, and this is very unlikely in the current political climate.
--Percy
Edited by Percy, : Wordsmithing.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 188 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 8:36 PM Faith has not replied

Faith 
Suspended Member (Idle past 1444 days)
Posts: 35298
From: Nevada, USA
Joined: 10-06-2001


Message 195 of 5179 (684246)
12-16-2012 9:15 PM
Reply to: Message 191 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 9:06 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
The PEOPLE were to be the militia and the militia was to be available to defend the country. That's why the phrase about conscientious objectors was included. It was more of a duty than a right in the thinking of many.
What you'll find if you'll read the material I keep talking about that I posted in Message 57 is that the whole body of the people was considered to be the militia itself. There were some variant ideas but this is the one that everybody comes back to. That is a long article I linked but it is well worth reading.
I'll post again here what I posted there:
History of the Second Amendment
David E Vandercoy
1994
History of the Second Amendment
ValpoScholar | Valparaiso University Research
(unable to get either link to work, but the one in Msg 57 works)
Here is his Conclusion:
English history made two things clear to the American revolutionaries: force of arms was the only effective check on government, and standing armies threatened liberty. Recognition of these premises meant that the force of arms necessary to check government had to be placed in the hands of citizens. The English theorists Blackstone and Harrington advocated these tenants. [sic] Because the public purpose of the right to keep arms was to check government, the right necessarily belonged to the individual and, as a matter of theory, was thought to be absolute in that it could not be abrogated by the prevailing rulers.
These views were adopted by the framers, both Federalists and Antifederalists. Neither group trusted government. Both believed the greatest danger to the new republic was tyrannical government and that the ultimate check on tyranny was an armed population. It is beyond dispute that the second amendment right was to serve the same public purpose as advocated by the English theorists. The check on all government, not simply the federal government, was the armed population, the militia. Government would not be accorded the power to create a select militia since such a body would become the government's instrument. The whole of the population would comprise the militia. As the constitutional debates prove, the framers recognized that the common public purpose of preserving freedom would be served by protecting each individual's right to arms, thus empowering the people to resist tyranny and preserve the republic. The intent was not to create a right for other governments, the individual states; it was to preserve the people's right to a free state, just as it says.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : trying to get the URL to work.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

He who surrenders the first page of his Bible surrenders all. --John William Burgon, Inspiration and Interpretation, Sermon II.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 191 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 9:06 PM NoNukes has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 199 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 9:53 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 211 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 10:22 PM Faith has replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024