Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,815 Year: 3,072/9,624 Month: 917/1,588 Week: 100/223 Day: 11/17 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
Theodoric
Member
Posts: 9076
From: Northwest, WI, USA
Joined: 08-15-2005
Member Rating: 3.7


Message 211 of 5179 (684266)
12-16-2012 10:22 PM
Reply to: Message 195 by Faith
12-16-2012 9:15 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
David E Vandercoy
Tell me why he is an authority.
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

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 195 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 9:15 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 213 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 10:32 PM Theodoric has replied

Admin
Director
Posts: 12998
From: EvC Forum
Joined: 06-14-2002
Member Rating: 2.3


(1)
Message 212 of 5179 (684267)
12-16-2012 10:25 PM
Reply to: Message 209 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 10:14 PM


Moderator Request
Please focus on the topic and not on the people you're discussing with. Your belief that people are lying to you in thread after thread is your problem, not other people's. If you don't start keeping these feelings to yourself then I will suspend you. No replies to this message, please.

--Percy
EvC Forum Director

This message is a reply to:
 Message 209 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:14 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 213 of 5179 (684269)
12-16-2012 10:32 PM
Reply to: Message 211 by Theodoric
12-16-2012 10:22 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
David E Vandercoy
Tell me why he is an authority.
Theodoric, I am not presenting him as an authority, I don't know a thing about him as a person.
I am presenting his paper as an extremely well documented study of the HISTORY of the thinking that led up to the Second Amendment. He covers the historical background of the relevant concerns in England through king after king, and he covers the various arguments of the Constitutional framers and others concerning the issues that eventuated in the Second Amendment.
It's a very persuasive accumulation of EVIDENCE that should give context to the amendment that we are not normally aware of.
Edited by Faith, : No reason given.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 211 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 10:22 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 216 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 10:56 PM Faith has not replied
 Message 217 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 10:59 PM Faith has replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


Message 214 of 5179 (684272)
12-16-2012 10:41 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 10:13 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
Hi crashfrog, just a few points of order:
... The US already has a military for domestic defense, ...
The armed forces of the US are prohibited from action inside the US, as this function is set aside for the militia in the constitution, and has been taken over by the National Guard when they evolved out of the militias, as part of their duties.
You will note that it is the Governor of the states that call out the National Guard to respond to riots, etc. ... because he is the one in charge of the state's militia.
No, it means "organized", orderly.
Not really ... orderly comes under "disciplined", while organized here clearly means set up in an organization, with levels of leadership, in a nested hierarchy of command and responsibility, etc. and where the officers etc are appointed by the various states, per the constitution.
Such officers do NOT appear in self-appointed mob militias.
Amendment II does NOT define what the militia is -- that is already covered within the constitution.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 208 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:02 PM RAZD has replied
 Message 225 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2012 11:44 PM RAZD has replied

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


(3)
Message 215 of 5179 (684273)
12-16-2012 10:55 PM
Reply to: Message 208 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 10:13 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
You obviously have no concept of why there was the bill of rights.
Ypur argument makes no sense. This is a reaffirming that there is a right to bear arms in conjunction with the militia mentioned in the Constitution.
The founders had a fear of armed rabble. They were the elites in a period of revolution. The well regulated militia was a means to allow citizenry arms bu to keep them organized and well regulated.
Maybe you need to understand what the word regulated means.
This was a legal document so words in it have a legalistic meaning. Do you actually thing well-regulated means outside of government control? That is the anithesis of what the term well regulated means. Well regulated means following regulations. Regulations are laws.
What do you think would qualify today as a well regulated militia?
It's not a protection of the right to hunt or the right to self-defense; it's a defense of the right to pose a credible resistance to armies.
Did you not just say this?
Or do you believe that the First Amendment doesn't apply to the TV news simply because there was no such thing as TV in 1776?
Yet you think an armed populace can defeat a modern army?
Your arguments are schizophrenic at best.
That's not even historically accurate, and that's hardly the interpretation you expect to apply to the rest of the Bill of Rights.
It is an argument of the absurd. I am stunned that you believe it is a real argument. The basis is people like Faith making claims that we must stick with founders original intent. Unless of course that argument works against you then they throw it out.
Oh how is it not historically accurate?

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 208 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 10:13 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 220 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:15 PM Theodoric has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 216 of 5179 (684274)
12-16-2012 10:56 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
12-16-2012 10:32 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
It's a very persuasive accumulation of EVIDENCE that should give context to the amendment that we are not normally aware of.
Speak for yourself. I have studied the history behind the first and second amendments. This is not unfamiliar ground to me.
In any event, the article you cited is a law review article. I note that Vandercoy provides no explanation whatsoever of the rewording by the Senate of the 2nd amendment into its current form.

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 213 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 10:32 PM Faith has not replied

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


(3)
Message 217 of 5179 (684275)
12-16-2012 10:59 PM
Reply to: Message 213 by Faith
12-16-2012 10:32 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Theodoric, I am not presenting him as an authority, I don't know a thing about him as a person.
Then why should I give a flying fuck about anything he writes?
I am presenting his paper as an extremely well documented study of the HISTORY of the thinking that led up to the Second Amendment. He covers the historical background of the relevant concerns in England through king after king, and he covers the various arguments of the Constitutional framers and others concerning the issues that eventuated in the Second Amendment.
How do you know it is accurate?
This a fallacious argument.
The paper shows his interpretations of the evidence. It is an interpretation. There are many legal scholars and historians that come to different conclusions.

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 213 by Faith, posted 12-16-2012 10:32 PM Faith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 231 by Faith, posted 12-17-2012 1:36 AM Theodoric has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 218 of 5179 (684276)
12-16-2012 11:02 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
12-16-2012 10:41 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
The armed forces of the US are prohibited from action inside the US, as this function is set aside for the militia in the constitution, and has been taken over by the National Guard when they evolved out of the militias, as part of their duties.
The National Guard evolved out of state armies, and the Federal armed forces were prohibited from internal action only by the Posse Comitatus Act signed after the Civil War.
Not really ... orderly comes under "disciplined", while organized here clearly means set up in an organization, with levels of leadership, in a nested hierarchy of command and responsibility, etc. and where the officers etc are appointed by the various states, per the constitution.
Sure, but that really doesn't contradict me because you're missing my point. Again the point of the Second Amendment is not to establish a militia, but to prevent the government from disarming the people. Like every Amendment of the Bill of Rights, it limits the power of the Federal government. It's fundamentally ahistorical to suggest that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to reserve arms only to the military. That's absurd - the military doesn't need a Constitutional amendment to be armed, that's implied in the notion of being the military. You're promoting an interpretation of the Second Amendment that makes no sense; if it meant what you say it meant, then there was no reason to write it.
The Second Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms and enjoins the government from broadly disarming the general populace. That's been supported by 200 years of jurisprudence.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 10:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 221 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 11:17 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 223 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 11:29 PM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 11:41 PM crashfrog has replied
 Message 367 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 10:19 PM crashfrog has not replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 219 of 5179 (684278)
12-16-2012 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 197 by RAZD
12-16-2012 9:45 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
The duties set for the Militia in the constitution are presently being performed by the National Guard, and there is no other body that does this, ergo the National Guard is de facto the Militia as envisaged by the founders.
The states can set up state militia units that are not the National Guard, apparently some states have done so. The constitution does reserve the power to create, train, and regulate militias to the States.

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 197 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 9:45 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 232 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 2:40 AM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1466 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 220 of 5179 (684279)
12-16-2012 11:15 PM
Reply to: Message 215 by Theodoric
12-16-2012 10:55 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
You obviously have no concept of why there was the bill of rights.
The purpose of the Bill of Rights is to limit the power of the Federal government. Specifically, the Second Amendment limits the power of the Federal government to disarm the people of the United States. That's abundant in the writings of the Framers and its supported by 200 years of jurisprudence.
This is a reaffirming that there is a right to bear arms in conjunction with the militia mentioned in the Constitution.
But there's no need to affirm that, because it's redundant. Militaries are armed, by definition. If you're in the Army, that implies the "right" to bear whatever arms they see fit to arm you with. There would be no need for the Second Amendment to have been written.
Yet you think an armed populace can defeat a modern army?
Sure. Have you just not opened a newspaper in the past seven years?
The basis is people like Faith making claims that we must stick with founders original intent.
For 200 years - including last month, in Federal appeals court - the Second Amendment has been interpreted as implying an individual right to keep and bear arms as a private citizen. But you're the one making the wacky originalist argument that the original intent was to remind people that armies get to be armed. But that's stupid.
Oh how is it not historically accurate?
Breech-loading rifles and cartridge ammunition were contemporary with the Revolutionary War and known to the Framers (since the British had been using both.) But as usual you're so certain in your correctness you've not bothered to do even basic research.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 215 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 10:55 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 222 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 11:25 PM crashfrog has replied

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


(1)
Message 221 of 5179 (684280)
12-16-2012 11:17 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 11:02 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
The National Guard evolved out of state armies
Source for these state armies please.
According to the National Guard itself they evolved from colonial and state militias. I know not of these state armies of which you speak.
Was there an Ohio state army at one time? NY state army? Georgia?
and the Federal armed forces were prohibited from internal action only by the Posse Comitatus Act signed after the Civil War.
There is no such prohibition.
quote:
Contrary to popular belief, the Act does not prohibit members of the Army from exercising state law enforcement, police, or peace officer powers that maintain "law and order"; it simply requires that any authority to do so must exist with the United States Constitution or Act of Congress.{Federalist 29 (Hamilton, 1788)} In this way, most use of the Army and the Air Force at the direction of the President does not offend the statute, even though it may be problematic for political reasons.
Posse Comitatus Act
Basically, if Congress or the President authorizes it it is not a violation of the Posse Comitatus Act.

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 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

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


Message 222 of 5179 (684283)
12-16-2012 11:25 PM
Reply to: Message 220 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 11:15 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Sure. Have you just not opened a newspaper in the past seven years?
We are speaking in the terms of an invasion. A civil war is a much different situation. But of course you will not acknowledge that. Also, the people fighting in these civil wars are not armed with handguns and semi auto rifles only. They are using heavy weapons and heavy machine guns. I was not clear by saying armed populace, what I should have said populace armed with civilian weapons.
But then again this defeats your argument that an armed populace is necessary to prevent the tyranny of government.
Syria and Tunisia have very strict gun laws. Libya had a total ban on private ownership. Seems they did pretty well considering gun restrictions. They had no need to have an already armed populace to overthrow the dictators.
For 200 years - including last month, in Federal appeals court - the Second Amendment has been interpreted as implying an individual right to keep and bear arms as a private citizen.
Building strawmen I see. How about arguing against my statements not what oyu want to argure against.
Show where I have said there is no right. The point i am making is that there is an ability to heavily regulate them. It is right there in the Constitution.
ABE
Breech-loading rifles and cartridge ammunition were contemporary with the Revolutionary War and known to the Framers (since the British had been using both.)
There were 200 breechloading rifles used in the revolutionary war. It was the Ferguson rifle. Show they were known by the framers. Your cartridge comment is another strawman. Where did I say anything about there not being cartridges. Cartridges were quote common for muzzleloaders. Now how about showing a non-single shot
Edited by Theodoric, : Time to deal with strawmen
Edited by Theodoric, : No reason given.

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 220 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:15 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 238 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 8:15 AM Theodoric has replied

NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 223 of 5179 (684284)
12-16-2012 11:29 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 11:02 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
The Second Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms and enjoins the government from broadly disarming the general populace. That's been supported by 200 years of jurisprudence.
I can agree with that statement, but the scope of the individual right has not been uniformly supported by the jurisprudence over the past 200 years. The current near severance of the individual right to bear arms from the purpose of maintaining a militia simply did not exist in the 20th century. It certainly was less than clear that there were limitations on state attempts to control guns.
DC v Heller and forward are substantially different from prior decisions such as US v. Miller and Lewis v. United States. In fact, prior to DC v Heller essentially all federal legislation limiting guns was held to be constitutional. I am not familiar with any cases dealing with incorporation of the second amendment to apply to the states.
ABE:
By cases dealing with incorporation, I mean cases prior to McDonald v. Chicago (2010). My point is that current jurisprudence is pretty new.
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)
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 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:02 PM crashfrog has not replied

RAZD
Member (Idle past 1405 days)
Posts: 20714
From: the other end of the sidewalk
Joined: 03-14-2004


(1)
Message 224 of 5179 (684285)
12-16-2012 11:41 PM
Reply to: Message 218 by crashfrog
12-16-2012 11:02 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
Hi again crashfrog
... Again the point of the Second Amendment is not to establish a militia, but to prevent the government from disarming the people. ...
... and it does not specify what those arms are. It does not say machine guns or canons.
And it does not prevent the states from passing gun control laws, a position upheld by the Supreme Court.
... It's fundamentally ahistorical to suggest that the purpose of the Second Amendment is to reserve arms only to the military. That's absurd - the military doesn't need a Constitutional amendment to be armed, that's implied in the notion of being the military. ...
And the constitution draws a line between military and militia (now the National Guard), and it says that the feds provide the arms for the militia.
Obviously anyone in the militia (National Guard) has the right to bear and operate (under appropriate conditions) the arms provided by the federal government. This does not mean that the average citizen has a right to carry a bazooka into downtown New York city (intentional hyperbole).
The Second Amendment preserves an individual right to keep and bear arms ...
But not for just any purpose any individual happens to think up, for the specific purpose of being able to form a well regulated militia. You want to bear arms? Join the National Guard.
... and enjoins the government from broadly disarming the general populace. That's been supported by 200 years of jurisprudence.
And yet, curiously, in many states there are regulations that prohibit the possession of guns in or near schools (and other places). These laws have been passed through the Supreme Court, so obviously there is an error in your blanket statement\thinking: there can be restrictions established by the states.
Enjoy.

we are limited in our ability to understand
by our ability to understand
Rebel American Zen Deist
... to learn ... to think ... to live ... to laugh ...
to share.


Join the effort to solve medical problems, AIDS/HIV, Cancer and more with Team EvC! (click)

This message is a reply to:
 Message 218 by crashfrog, posted 12-16-2012 11:02 PM crashfrog has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 239 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 8:24 AM RAZD has replied

xongsmith
Member
Posts: 2578
From: massachusetts US
Joined: 01-01-2009
Member Rating: 6.8


Message 225 of 5179 (684286)
12-16-2012 11:44 PM
Reply to: Message 214 by RAZD
12-16-2012 10:41 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
RAZD writes:
You will note that it is the Governor of the states that call out the National Guard to respond to riots, etc. ... because he is the one in charge of the state's militia.
Hmmm...I don't seem to recall Alabama Governor George Wallace calling out the National Guard during the Civil Rights demonstrations. Seems they were called out by Washington, D.C.?

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 214 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 10:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 226 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 11:51 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied
 Message 227 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 12:01 AM xongsmith has replied
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 1:11 AM xongsmith 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