Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
6 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 13/17 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
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 226 of 5179 (684287)
12-16-2012 11:51 PM
Reply to: Message 225 by xongsmith
12-16-2012 11:44 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
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.?
The constitution makes the president the Commander-in-Chief of the state militia. The governor can call on the guard for order keeping purposes and to help during natural disasters, but the governor cannot use the guard to defy the president.

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 225 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2012 11:44 PM xongsmith has seen this message but not replied

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


(1)
Message 227 of 5179 (684290)
12-17-2012 12:01 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by xongsmith
12-16-2012 11:44 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
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.?
Maybe you have heard of the President of the United States. He can nationalize the National Guard.

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 225 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2012 11:44 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 228 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2012 1:07 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 228 of 5179 (684294)
12-17-2012 1:07 AM
Reply to: Message 227 by Theodoric
12-17-2012 12:01 AM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
NoNukes & Theodoric help me make my tiny point. Thanks.
The National Guard is not really controlled at the state level. The POTUS actually is the plenipotentiary here. Therefore, to use the National Guard as an example of the current modern America's exercise of the intent of the 2nd Amendment to prevent the government from disarming the citizenry, as crashfrog has argued, is flawed.
RAZD has made a good argument for most of the issues raised - particularly for finding a way for gun freaks to get to have their fun, but it fails under crashfrog's criterion.
....obligatory Dylan quote:
"I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more.
No, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more.
Well, he puts his cigar
Out in your face just for kicks.
His bedroom window
It is made out of bricks.
The National Guard stands around his door.
Ah, I ain't gonna work for Maggie's pa no more."
Edited by xongsmith, : attribution props to his Bobness

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 227 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 12:01 AM Theodoric has not replied

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


(1)
Message 229 of 5179 (684295)
12-17-2012 1:11 AM
Reply to: Message 225 by xongsmith
12-16-2012 11:44 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
Hi xongsmith,
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.?
and yet ...
Little Rock Nine - Wikipedia
quote:
Several segregationist councils threatened to hold protests at Central High and physically block the black students from entering the school. Governor Orval Faubus deployed the Arkansas National Guard to support the segregationists on September 4, 1957. ...
... Even President Dwight Eisenhower attempted to de-escalate the situation by summoning Faubus for a meeting, warning him not to defy the Supreme Court's ruling.[5]
Armed escort
Woodrow Wilson Mann, the Mayor of Little Rock, asked President Eisenhower to send federal troops to enforce integration and protect the nine students. On September 24, the President ordered the 101st Airborne Division of the United States Army to Little Rock and federalized the entire 10,000 member Arkansas National Guard, taking it out of the hands of Faubus.
and ...
LBJ Sends Federal Troops to Alabama - HISTORY
quote:
... in 1965, President Lyndon B. Johnson notifies Alabama's Governor George Wallace that he will use federal authority to call up the Alabama National Guard in order to supervise a planned civil rights march from Selma to Montgomery. ...
... Hours after promising Johnson--in telephone calls recorded by the White House--that he would call out the Alabama National Guard to maintain order, Wallace went on television and demanded that Johnson send in federal troops instead.
Furious, Johnson told Attorney General Nicholas Katzenbach to write a press release stating that because Wallace refused to use the 10,000 available guardsmen to preserve order in his state, Johnson himself was calling the guard up and giving them all necessary support. ...
So it was the failure of the governors to call out the National Guard to preserve order that precipitated the federalization of the guard by the presidents.
The National Guard units are under the jurisdiction of the states unless - and until - they are federalized.
Federalization was intended to be a temporary thing, in a time of need.
This basic process that separated the militia\guard units and federal military units has been woefully overreached with Schrubbia's calling up and using the guard for foreign invasions.
Enjoy.
Edited by RAZD, : clrty

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 225 by xongsmith, posted 12-16-2012 11:44 PM xongsmith has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 230 by xongsmith, posted 12-17-2012 1:15 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 230 of 5179 (684298)
12-17-2012 1:15 AM
Reply to: Message 229 by RAZD
12-17-2012 1:11 AM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
Thanks, RAZD. Sorry to make you do my dirty work.
Those were the days indeed.
But my nitpick remains - the POTUS can take over the National Guard.

- xongsmith, 5.7d

This message is a reply to:
 Message 229 by RAZD, posted 12-17-2012 1:11 AM RAZD has seen this message but not replied

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


Message 231 of 5179 (684300)
12-17-2012 1:36 AM
Reply to: Message 217 by Theodoric
12-16-2012 10:59 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
How do you know it is accurate?
HE GIVES A TON OF REFERENCES for crying out loud. He quotes Kings and Parliamentarians and legal writers and state governors and others on the subject. How would anybody know anything is accurate? By considering the EVIDENCE.
This a fallacious argument.
Oh brother, you have no appreciation for what real scholarship is all about. Just read some of it, skip through it at least.
The paper shows his interpretations of the evidence.
THERE IS NO WAY TO AVOID INTERPRETATION, Theodoric, everything you read involves interpretations. The question is whether the evidence supports them or not and my claim is it does in this paper. But you have to READ the thing to know, you can't just make blanket judgments without doing that much.
It is an interpretation. There are many legal scholars and historians that come to different conclusions.
But very likely not from the same historical evidence.
READ THE THING AND DECIDE FROM THERE.

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 217 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 10:59 PM Theodoric has not replied

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


Message 232 of 5179 (684312)
12-17-2012 2:40 AM
Reply to: Message 219 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 11:15 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
Hi NoNukes,
Just when I think it can't get more bizarre
... apparently some states have done so. ...
Out of curiosity, which ones? Texas? Arizona? Is ALEC\NRA involved?
http://thearizonasentinel.com/...aw-will-other-states-follow
Sounds like an ALEC\NRA kind of bill ... it will be interesting to see if this holds up.
... The constitution does reserve the power to create, train, and regulate militias to the States.
and the authority to appoint the officers that maintain order within the militias.
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 219 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 11:15 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Tangle
Member
Posts: 9489
From: UK
Joined: 10-07-2011
Member Rating: 4.9


(1)
Message 233 of 5179 (684318)
12-17-2012 3:50 AM
Reply to: Message 182 by NoNukes
12-16-2012 7:37 PM


Re: The Reality aint easy
NoNukes writes:
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.
Your constitution can of course be changed if there is a political will in the country to do so.
I suppose the lack of political will can only be because the majority of Americans want to keep their guns. If that's true then, sadly, you all have to live with the consequences.
In the UK, after Dunblane, the majority view was 'get rid of the guns as fast as you can, we don't want them here anymore'.
We find it hard/impossible to understand any other position.

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

This message is a reply to:
 Message 182 by NoNukes, posted 12-16-2012 7:37 PM NoNukes has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 234 by saab93f, posted 12-17-2012 6:14 AM Tangle has not replied
 Message 236 by Percy, posted 12-17-2012 8:00 AM Tangle has not replied

saab93f
Member (Idle past 1394 days)
Posts: 265
From: Finland
Joined: 12-17-2009


(1)
Message 234 of 5179 (684322)
12-17-2012 6:14 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Tangle
12-17-2012 3:50 AM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Could someone pretty please tell me why a civilian would ever need a rapid-fire gun? How on earth can such a weapon ever be justified?
I do know that many people have hunting for a hobby but arent hunting rifles and shotguns for that purpose.
I personally would not shed a single tear if each and every firearm was confiscated and melted.
This message is not actually meant for Tangle but as a general wandering.
Edited by saab93f, : Added reply info.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Tangle, posted 12-17-2012 3:50 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 240 by Dogmafood, posted 12-17-2012 8:38 AM saab93f has replied
 Message 247 by crashfrog, posted 12-17-2012 10:05 AM saab93f has not replied
 Message 256 by New Cat's Eye, posted 12-17-2012 11:17 AM saab93f has not replied

Heathen
Member (Idle past 1283 days)
Posts: 1067
From: Brizzle
Joined: 09-20-2005


Message 235 of 5179 (684323)
12-17-2012 6:50 AM
Reply to: Message 76 by jar
12-15-2012 8:35 AM


Re: guns versus mentality
but that does not imply that I will not need to be armed
by that logic you should carry around an RPG, and maybe a tactical nuke... and some ricin,
Y'know.. just in case

This message is a reply to:
 Message 76 by jar, posted 12-15-2012 8:35 AM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 251 by jar, posted 12-17-2012 10:52 AM Heathen has replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 236 of 5179 (684328)
12-17-2012 8:00 AM
Reply to: Message 233 by Tangle
12-17-2012 3:50 AM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Tangle writes:
Your constitution can of course be changed if there is a political will in the country to do so.
Yes, exactly. Regardless of the founders' intent in the 2nd amendment, about which there is much debate, we can amend it. The founders believed many things that feel strange to modern minds, such as that some people were actually only 3/5 of a person and that women shouldn't vote, but we amended the constitution and we can do so again.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 233 by Tangle, posted 12-17-2012 3:50 AM Tangle has not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 244 by NoNukes, posted 12-17-2012 9:52 AM Percy has seen this message but not replied

Percy
Member
Posts: 22392
From: New Hampshire
Joined: 12-23-2000
Member Rating: 5.3


Message 237 of 5179 (684330)
12-17-2012 8:11 AM
Reply to: Message 200 by kofh2u
12-16-2012 9:54 PM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Hi Kofh2u,
This thread isn't about welfare or planned parenthood, but I didn't want to let another of your errors go by without comment:
kofh2u writes:
The decline was due to the rise in Abortions starting in 1972, after Roe Vs Wade.
This cut the Single Mother trend in half, so we saw a correlation with a drop in violent crime.
The number of single mothers has been increasing since the 1970s and is still increasing, yet youth crime has been declining for the past 20 years.
This thread is about gun control.
--Percy

This message is a reply to:
 Message 200 by kofh2u, posted 12-16-2012 9:54 PM kofh2u has not replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


(1)
Message 238 of 5179 (684331)
12-17-2012 8:15 AM
Reply to: Message 222 by Theodoric
12-16-2012 11:25 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard
We are speaking in the terms of an invasion.
So was I. I was specifically referring to the countries we've invaded, the native populations of which have held us at bay with the exact weapons - automatic and semi-automatic rifles - currently under discussion. It's worth noting, it seems to me, that the rate of firearms ownership in Iraq is roughly the same as it is in the US.
How about arguing against my statements not what oyu want to argure against.
I'll make whatever arguments I feel support my point, Theodoric. You're not in a position to dictate the terms of discussion, whatever you may believe.
Now how about showing a non-single shot
Fun fact:
quote:
The main producer of self-cocking top-hammer pepperboxes (mostly referred to as "bar-hammer pepperbox") in the USA was Ethan Allen, but this type of weapon was also produced in very large quantities in England.
Oh, actually, not so fun:
quote:
Ethan Allen (September 2, 1808—1871) was a major American arms maker from Massachusetts. He is believed to be unrelated to the revolutionary Ethan Allen.
Still, though. Sure, I'm not going to be able to show you a box-magazine short-recoil semi-auto handgun from the Revolutionary War, since those weapons weren't invented until 1909 or so. But firearms technology was growing even during the Revolutionary War, and there's absolutely no notion in any writing of the Founders that they envisioned a Second Amendment that applied only to the specific firearms technology that existed at the time. That would have been completely at odds with their conception of the Constitution as a document for the future of the country, a document meant to grow and expand along with a growing and expanding nation.
And yes, I do believe that repeal of the Second Amendment is permissible as part of that flexibility. But deprecating a major American right isn't something that should be done glibly. It's not even clear that it would help - even if you repealed the Second Amendment, 44 of 50 state constitutions preserve an explicit right to bear arms; even if all such constitutions were amended, the Fourth Amendment prohibits the widespread confiscation of anything from those not convicted of crime.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 222 by Theodoric, posted 12-16-2012 11:25 PM Theodoric has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 241 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 8:44 AM crashfrog has replied

crashfrog
Member (Idle past 1467 days)
Posts: 19762
From: Silver Spring, MD
Joined: 03-20-2003


Message 239 of 5179 (684335)
12-17-2012 8:24 AM
Reply to: Message 224 by RAZD
12-16-2012 11:41 PM


Re: the Second Amendment and the National Guard - NOT the military
... and it does not specify what those arms are. It does not say machine guns or canons.
It doesn't say "cannons" because cannons are not arms, they're artillery; you can't bear a cannon.
"Keep and bear arms" is about individual arms (cannons require a group to fire.) "Well-regulated" implies orderly arms, specifically (per United States v. Miller) those that have "some reasonable relationship to any preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia", that could be used as part of "the ordinary military equipment or that its use could contribute to the common defense." In other words it is specifically accurate, precise military-style firearms the Second Amendment protects - not explosives, inaccurate bullet-hoses, or weapons of mass (and indiscriminate) destruction.
This does not mean that the average citizen has a right to carry a bazooka into downtown New York city (intentional hyperbole).
Obviously not, but the Second Amendment doesn't protect bazookas. But it does protect semi-automatic rifles and handguns specifically because they're appropriate for individual military use.
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.
Yes, that's exactly right - not for hunting, not for self-defense, but so that there's a broad base of armed adults - with their own guns - you can muster for the civil defense.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 224 by RAZD, posted 12-16-2012 11:41 PM RAZD has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 253 by Theodoric, posted 12-17-2012 10:56 AM crashfrog has not replied
 Message 581 by RAZD, posted 12-19-2012 9:51 PM crashfrog has not replied

Dogmafood
Member (Idle past 348 days)
Posts: 1815
From: Ontario Canada
Joined: 08-04-2010


(2)
Message 240 of 5179 (684336)
12-17-2012 8:38 AM
Reply to: Message 234 by saab93f
12-17-2012 6:14 AM


Re: The Reality aint easy
Could someone pretty please tell me why a civilian would ever need a rapid-fire gun? How on earth can such a weapon ever be justified?
Zombies.

This message is a reply to:
 Message 234 by saab93f, posted 12-17-2012 6:14 AM saab93f has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 242 by saab93f, posted 12-17-2012 8:52 AM Dogmafood has seen this message but not replied

Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024