|
Register | Sign In |
|
QuickSearch
Thread ▼ Details |
|
|
Author | Topic: Gun Control Again | |||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
My point is what I said:
It turns out that suspensions of constitutions are not very common, and that examples of such suspensions being a good idea are even rarer. Most of them are done by dictators and have little to recommend them as examples. What's your point?quote:
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: Constitutions are suspended every day.
Perhaps you are right. Let's look at some examples of constitutions that have been suspended so far this year and evaluate whether they make good examples. Which ones are those? As if this really needs to be explained, in the context in which Ringo used the idiom "every day" it means "regularly" or "steadily," not daily, monthly or even annually. It's similar to when "all the time" is used idiomatically. You always do this - if necessary I can define "always do this" for you as used in this context. Could we just get on with a discussion of what Ringo actually meant instead of what you want to accuse him of meaning? He obviously meant that the suspension of constitutions is not an uncommon occurrence. If you think he's wrong, that the suspension of constitutions *is* an uncommon occurrence, then argue about that. You have his Wikipedia list of suspended constitutions - take a look and use that as a basis of discussion. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
. It's similar to when "all the time" is used idiomatically. Right Percy. But it turns out that constitutions are not regularly suspended, and that historically suspension of the governments are rarely done by democratically styled governments. These are all points that I made with ringo. Figure of speech or not, ringo's statement was an exaggeration of just how common it is to suspend the constitution.
Could we just get on with a discussion of what Ringo actually meant I've done that, Percy. Ringo managed to make a point about the figure of speech and I've already responded to that based on the list Ringo linked to. Ringo responded again, and I am content to leave it at that. Why isn't that enough for you? Ringo's point is that the executive branch should simply ignore the Supreme Court because it is common to suspend the constitution. Well, guess what? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
If I said, "Constitutions CAN BE SUSPENDED," would that pass muster?
Figure of speech or not, ringo's statement was an exaggeration of just how common it is to suspend the constitution.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member
|
If I said, "Constitutions CAN BE SUSPENDED," would that pass muster? Isn't the real question whether or not we should suspend the constitution? And by suspend what is meant here is the executive branch of the feds or states simply ignoring a Supreme Court ruling? Do I really have to argue why it is not stupid to not do such a thing? Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Percy Member Posts: 22479 From: New Hampshire Joined: Member Rating: 4.7 |
NoNukes writes: Figure of speech or not, ringo's statement was an exaggeration of just how common it is to suspend the constitution. Uh, no, it wasn't. Or is this another case of everyone but you understanding precisely what was meant? How does this from your Message 4845 even make sense:
NoNukes in Message 4845 writes: Of course it is a figure of speech...Apparently "suspended every day" is a gross exaggeration. So it's both a figure of speech *and* "a gross exaggeration." At least be consistent about whether to stick to your original (and wrong) literal interpretation.
I've done that, Percy. Ringo managed to make a point about the figure of speech and I've already responded to that. Ringo responded again, and I am content to leave it at that. Why isn't that enough for you? I'm just hoping it's enough for you. If you're "content" to actually discuss the topic now, wonderful. --Percy
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
AZPaul3 Member Posts: 8527 From: Phoenix Joined: Member Rating: 5.2
|
That's what I'm doing. The Second Amendment clearly does not apply to people who are not members of "a well-regulated militia", yet your government stupidly follows the misinterpretation of the law. No, you're still faulting the government for following a law they have no power to alter even in opposition. Your interpretation of the amendment is agreed to by many, and disagreed to by many, of the best constitutional scholars around. The court, split 5-4, came down on one side. The Rule of Law requires this government to act in accordance with that interpretation. Not optional. This not the perfect system. In fact it is the worst system except for all the others ever tried. I can live in a society ruled by law even if imperfectly. As we have seen throughout history the alternatives eventually devolve into abuse, anarchy and war.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
Hyroglyphx Inactive Member |
It isn't the constitution that restrains the government from wielding unlimited power. Constitutions are suspended every day. What does that even mean? "Reason obeys itself; and ignorance submits to whatever is dictated to it" -- Thomas Paine
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
No. The real question is whether or not there is any way to reverse a stupid Supreme Court ruling. Isn't the real question whether or not we should suspend the constitution? I suspect not. I suspect that calling for gun control today is like calling, "Man the pumps!" on the Titanic today.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
Hyroglyphx writes:
I'm glad you asked. It means that it isn't the constitution that restrains the government from wielding unlimited power. ringo writes:
What does that even mean? It isn't the constitution that restrains the government from wielding unlimited power. Your next question is, "Then what does?" It depends. For example, why did Hitler get away with seizing unlimited power in Germany? Because hardly anybody objected; they wanted him to have power. It isn't the constitution that restrains the government; it's the will of the people.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
AZPual3 writes:
But clearly there are options. For a right that "shall not be infringed", there's a lot of infringement going on. Every restriction on gun-keeping and gun-bearing is an infringement. The court, split 5-4, came down on one side. The Rule of Law requires this government to act in accordance with that interpretation. Not optional. It isn't a question of whether or not you can "suspend the Constitution". It's a question of how high.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
frako Member (Idle past 326 days) Posts: 2932 From: slovenija Joined: |
But it also says well regulated and milita, and its clear that guns in the US are not well regulated, and not owned by only militia members.
Christianity, One woman's lie about an affair that got seriously out of hand What are the Christians gonna do to me ..... Forgive me, good luck with that.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
NoNukes Inactive Member |
No. The real question is whether or not there is any way to reverse a stupid Supreme Court ruling. I suspect not The ways to accomplish such a reversal are three fold, amend the constitution, receive yet another Supreme Court ruling, or signing a treaty that adds some new feature to federal law. There are substantial obstacles to every single one of those techniques. Mostly that difficulty is a good idea, but the system is not perfect.
I suspect that calling for gun control today is like calling,"Man the pumps!" on the Titanic today Meaning that even if we did as asked, the result would be futile? Or that the call would be ignored? I'm not sure what you are getting at with your analogy. The constitution is not an obstacle to substantial and effective gun control measures that a majority of Americans are comfortable with. Unfortunately that does not seem to be enough to get anything enacted. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given. Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846) History will have to record that the greatest tragedy of this period of social transition was not the strident clamor of the bad people, but the appalling silence of the good people. Martin Luther King If there are no stupid questions, then what kind of questions do stupid people ask? Do they get smart just in time to ask questions? Scott Adams
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
ringo Member (Idle past 432 days) Posts: 20940 From: frozen wasteland Joined: |
NoNukes writes:
I didn't think you would.
I'm not sure what you are getting at with your analogy.
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
New Cat's Eye Inactive Member |
For a right that "shall not be infringed", there's a lot of infringement going on. Every restriction on gun-keeping and gun-bearing is an infringement.
But it also says well regulated and milita, and its clear that guns in the US are not well regulated, and not owned by only militia members. Then obviously these interpretations are incorrect.
|
|
|
Do Nothing Button
Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved
Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024