dksuddeth

I am perfectly willing to acknowledge that after all of the debates concerning the constitution that the authors of said document truly didn't intend to have all individuals have the right to bear arms if someone can show me ANY, ONE SINGLE SHRED, of proof that that argument exists. I know that in politics, it's a matter of practice for the lawmakers to say one thing to the people and then write a law that is completely opposite, but there usually ends up leaving some sort of trail to show that.

Please show me how.

color me confused, I have no idea what you tried to say with this. although I do recognize that you paint an opinion that isn't in line with yours with the word 'radical'.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

roachboy

dk--i havent much time at the moment---

you cant determine my intent in writing this sentence.

you could rake through the piles of paper i drag around with me living space to living space, you could talk to folk who know me in 3-d world and you still coudlnt do it.
you could speculate about it.
you could use your assumptions to try to generate statements that would read as though they accounted for intent as a way of accounting for cause--but the links you would make are entirely a function of your assumptions.
and i am alive now--so far as i can tell at least.
if you cant work out intent in a messageboard post by a contemporary of yours, how can you possibly imagine that you'd be able to do it relative to the framers of the constitution, who have been dead 200 years or so?
arguments about intent are speculative.
(and they are usually uninteresting.)

more to say but no time to say it--gotta go.

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

roachboy

addendum:

think of the sentence above as a kind of barrier--meaning can be worked out based on the sequence of words, grammatical functions, etc.: your interpretation is based on the sentence and moves out from it in time--it follows the sentence, refers back to it.

intent would obtain on the far side of the barrier, would be a question of psychological situation at the point of composition (which you cannot really even delimit for yourself as you write a response, if you do)--you could be thinking any number of things--this argument is wrong; roachboy is an asshole (this is a quasi-universal, so often goes without saying in discussion with me); the afternoon is wide open, i would like to barbeque; this chair is falling apart.....intent could be impacted by networks of associations,--it is a difficult state ot even formalize, much less know about, much less know about with any certainty, uch less use as a guide for interpretation.

statements about intent are statements about meaning.
statements about intent are a type of statement about meaning.
they are moves within a game of interpretation of meaning.
for this type of statement to operate as you would prefer it to, there would have to be some kind of agreement about the meaning of this register of statement.
everything that happened within that register would follow from this agreement, and would constitute somethng of a little genre of interpretation, if you took all such statements together.
the conceit of this genre would be that when you talk about meaning, you can somehow thereby talk about intent.
it seems to me that, if you can talk about intent at all, it is in a trivial way--the statement exists and so reflects some level of intent, simply because the fact of the statement indicates something about an intentional state that precedes it--but past that there is nowhere to go, except into the space opened by a community of interpretations that conflate meaning and intent.

sentences are formalized results of actions that exceed the actions.
sentences are like any other work in that the processes behind them tend to drop away, are replaced by the implications of the results, become a space of projection.

within a hypothetical genre of interpretations that conflate meaning and intent, what would be determinate is not the content of the interpretive statements but who controls the genre rules.
it seems to me that this is incoherent except as a political action, one that presumably is rooted mostly in anxiety about the changing meaning of terms in the second amendment.
if you cannot rely upon the existing communities that operate within the game of interpreting the constitution to not dissolve the 18th century notion of milita into something else, for example, then the counter proposal is to create a new interpretive community that would be geared around fixing such definitions in order to prevent this type of interpretation.
it is the same game as that which you oppose, except that folk like you would see their political interests as being advanced by it.
there is no difference in kind between the type of interpretation you propose (based on intent) and that which curently exists (based on meaning).

__________________
a gramophone its corrugated trumpet silver handle
spinning dog. such faithfulness it hear

it make you sick.

-kamau brathwaite

smooth

Well, to be honest, I didn't see you quote half a dozen different people on this subject. And of the quotes of yours I did read, none of them seemed to state explicitly what you interpret from them and they aren't from legislative meetings so I'm not sure what bearing they would or should have on interpreting the law as it was intended.

Aside from that, I'm not claiming that anyone necessarily thought opposite of one another. and I'm not suggesting a mere two sides to this issue. I don't even link the 2nd amendment to anything at all about the farmers I was referring to, other than to suggest that the people arguing over what to include in our early documents were thinking in a particular milliue and referenced things they felt were most salient, not necessarily what would secure one's freedom on an objective level. we don't for example see any statements about the deity granted right to read...yet we see the right to freedom of the press, and guns, to take two examples of things the people and their representatives thought had been essential to securing their right to exist as an autonomous nation-state.

I'm simply trying to point out that you are melding a lot of people into a one-mindset mentality, as if you could do so from the votes cast or various statements made and recorded. This is perhaps the best example I can give you:

you, roachboy, jazz, and I are sitting around a table. you suggest that god gave us a right and responsibility to arm ourselves. roachboy thinks perhaps it's a good idea to maintain personal weapons, but not have a standing army. he also thinks in his head, maybe even says as much, that the concept of an active god is silly and so 16th century. I'd rather we have a standing army of sorts, but I see I'm already outvoted, unless jazz is on my side and we've stalemated. rather than risk it, I suggest we word our new legislation to point to the states' responsibilities to maintain order in regards to private ownership of weapons. I don't really care how it's done, I'm agnostic on the whole god thing, but I really think we should make sure we've got some way to protect our new society. jazz doesn't like what any of us are saying for various reasons and leaves the room.

so we write our stuff up and send it over to our colleugues to all vote on. jazz actually votes with us because we agreed to help him out with his free speech thingy...


a couple hundred years roll by and some people start bunting ideas around on an internet board. one of them happens to dig up an op-ed you wrote in the new york times about god giving everyone a right to own weapons. they find a reply by me to you that sure, we all know "god" works in mysterious ways and all that, but it's our responsibility to defend ourselves. he aint going to do it, so whatever else happens, we better maintain a militia. someone notices that all four of us, you, me, roachboy, and jazz voted for the right and assumes that means we all believed in a god given right to have weapons.

3 of us didn't, one of us did. but we all agreed on the end product...what gives?
well, for starters, there isn't anything in the amendment about god giving us that right. so whatever. we can debate on who thought what at the time, but it's all just meandering ramblings. the only meat we have to go on is the stuff that was codified.

now there's lots of valid reasons to argue for private ownership of weapons
there's lots of valid reasons to argue for ownership of weapons to be understood as a defense of the state affair, as opposed to a walk about town affair or keeping a sawed off shotty, tech9, or sks for sport shooting

but there isn't much need to argue over whether the people writing the documents believed in a god-given right to such weapons. as if that makes the claim even more legitimate. it is either legit or it;s not to my mind. you either have a good argument or you don't. it's either valid or invalid, for my purposes. and arguing from tradition or an appeal to higher authority doesn't state your case for you. and as if that wasn't enough, enter all the issues roachboy was trying to lay out...and hopefully my example illuminates why we both think you run into all sorts of problems when trying to decipher meaning of legislative manuevers in the manner you are trying to do.

I know it's not the middle of the night, but I'm just popping in from my supposed studying for comps so I shouldn't even be here. hopefully this quick and dirty post clarifies what I was trying to get at when I stopped by earlier.

my opposition to your argument stemmed from the way in which you laid it out, not some fundamental disagreement I have with private gun ownership (because I don't have one, for one thing).

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

dksuddeth

smooth, as round about and story telling as your post was.....I found it enlightening, informative, entertaining, and thought provoking.

I see what you were saying. thanks. great post.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

ubertuber

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dksuddeth

Remembering the lessons of history

April 29th, 1992, a day that started out like most other days in America. The one exception to this day would start in Los Angeles where a highly publicized trial was about to receive a verdict, and a whole nation watched with anticipation. That anticipation soon turned to disbelief and then horror as the city ignited in to rioting, looting, arson, and murder.

A man named Reginald Denny was violently yanked from his vehicle then severely beaten on the street by an angry mob of youths while news helicopters hovered overhead. I watched this entire vicious assault on an innocent man, live on television. I watched as these young thugs dropped a heavy cinderblock on Mr. Dennys head as he lay on the street unable to defend himself anymore. I remember thinking, hoping, and praying that the police would get there quickly and save this guys life. I’m sure that millions across the nation were hoping and praying for the same thing, that the police would rush to the rescue and save this man, who had done nothing, and get him to a hospital before he was killed.

Reginald Denny was finally rescued from several neighbors who, having seen this brutal attempted murder on the news, ran out in to the street, risking their own lives, to save the life of a stranger. We all had to be wondering ‘where were the police?’ The police, who are supposed to protect us not only hadn’t shown up, but they had been ordered out of the area, for their own safety.

Realizing that the police weren’t coming, the citizens of Los Angeles attempted to provide for their own protection by buying a gun. Imagine the shock and dismay when they were told that there was a 15 day waiting period. Now imagine the horror they felt when they realized that they would not be able to defend themselves adequately against a huge and violent mob of thousands. I’m told that an overwhelming amount of gun control advocates living in Los Angeles changed their minds that day. They no longer believed the lie they had been told, that the police are there to protect them.

50 to 60 people were killed during that week of lawlessness and violence, several small business’ and shops were burned to the ground, yet some shops survived, mostly intact, because those shopkeepers banded together with their own personal firearms and defended themselves and their property. They were forced to provide for their own defense because the police were more concerned about their own safety than that of the citizens who paid their salaries.

What kind of elected official tells his constituents that we don’t need guns to protect ourselves, that’s what the police are for, and then when things get too dangerous for the police, we are left to fend on our own? That kind of an elected official is one that does NOT have his constituents best interests at heart but is solely intent upon exercising his/her power to disarm the people in the city, to turn them in to victims.

The L.A. riots should stand out and remind every single one of us that we alone will end up being responsible for our own lives. The police cannot and should not be relied upon to ‘protect’ you. The United States Supreme Court has even ruled that the police are not liable, nor responsible to protect an individual, but only the public at large. It should remind us all that that is why we have the right to keep and bear arms and that we should no longer stand for anyone, especially our elected officials, to continue to legislate these rights away from us.

Stand up for your safety and protection. Stand up for your second amendment rights.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Oops. You screwed up. You've been posting thread after thread advocating gun ownership, claiming to be a responsible gun owner. Yet in this thread you say we should have hundreds, possibly thousands, of people who've never owned a gun, never had any training with the gun, all buying guns on the same day and looking to shoot anything that moves. With no training. If these people HAD been allowed to buy all the guns they wanted a LOT more people would have been hurt and killed. If you want a gun for self preservation, that's fine. I don't even have a problem with that (Just because the 2nd doesn't give you the right to it, it should be pointed out that the 2nd does not TAKE AWAY that right either. I have no problem with you having a gun as long as you're trained and responsible with it). But I DO have a problem with someone who is panicking (and who wouldn't panic in the middle of a citywide riot) and who buys a gun, never having any training with it, and then runs around trying to "defend" themselves. I'm frankly surprised that you would be in favor of this happening, since you claim to be such a responsible gun owner.

dksuddeth

how in the hell did you get that perception out of that one paragraph? I know you are not that dense.

If you would read it correctly, you would see that I'm slamming the gun control advocates who preached that nobody needed a gun, the police would be there to protect them, lets have waiting periods and background checks for people to make it harder to get a gun, and then when they found out that YES, you need a gun to protect yourself because you never know when the shit will hit the fan and the police are not always there to protect you and waiting periods are useless when you actually need the gun RIGHT THEN.

and I have to say, you have a seriously warped perception of some things, like the right to self preservation. I can assure you that 95% of the people in this country, when it came down to death/dying or shooting anything that moves and staying alive, that 95% will shoot anything that moves because people choose to live. your philosophy of all of these people causing more deaths is ludicrous considering that they wanted the gun IN THEIR HOMES, and not to take on the streets with them.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

dksuddeth, we all know and understand that you are pro gun , and we're cool with that. We might debate the finer points and such, but no one is suggesting taking your gun. I think we can keep this conversation in the 3-4 active threads on gun control already open. You already brought up the LA riots in another thread, so explore the subject there. We already have too many repeat conversations in he other threads to complicate it with yet another. I'm not ssuggesting the subject isn't impoirtant, I'm only suggesting that it already has a home in another thread.

I appreaciate your dedication.

dksuddeth

will, I understand about having too many posts on the same subject. My apologies if this becomes confusing to anyone. I just hate to see such a profound incident in history to get lost in threads nobody cares about anymore.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

Willravel

Please don't think I don't care. Remember, I'm a bleeding heart liberal . I care about stuff that isn't even my business. The LA riots effected my life a great deal because of my family and friends who live down in LA. Ity was a horrible time for everyone and was symptomatic of a much, much larger issue with racism that reaches far outside of LA. As much as the pro gun/gun control/gun ban argument applies to the LA riots, the larger issue, and the one that really could have had a positive effect on the situation is in dealing with the social problems dealing with racism and classism (sp?). Had those issueds been addressed before the LA riots, then they could have prevented a lot of crime, injuries, and deaths.

Several times I've repeated my arguments or points in the discussion in 3 or 4 different threads. Adding another will just further the unnecessary repetition.

nezmot

Well I'm not a bleeding heart liberal, but I'm getting quite tired of the same old arguments, over and over again too. DK, can we give the whole gun thing a rest please? I've had enough, and you never stick to the same point for long enough for anyone to have a proper argument with you, you're always flying off on different tangents, and getting all upset about the issue. Please, I know you're passionate, but I still wish you had that same passion for some important issues, like those that caused the LA riots in the first place. In every story you come up with, there's a definite argument against the 'guns-for-all' sort of world you seem to prefer - in this case, it's that if there were fewer guns on the streets, the police would have been better able to contain the riots, and would not have had to leave whole areas to degenerate into lawlessness.

How about you just try, for one week, to think about something other than weapons? It might do you some good to broaden your horizons a little, relax, and realise that there are far more fundamental and important things to become passionate about.

I'm going to do the same - one week - and no pro-control talk. Deal?

jorgelito

Dk, first off, thank you for a great thread. This topic is a bit rusty but has great relevance. As a citizen of LA I often wonder why it is so damn difficult for me, a law-abiding American has so much difficulty obtaining a "lawful" gun. Hell the kid down the street is armed to the teeth (I've seen it) with no apparent problems. I suppose I could go that route but I want to be part of the solution, not the problem.

The issue of the LA riots is pivotal. A great example is the political effect. For instance, many Korean shopowners (the ones with guns and vests) were able to protect their businesses. The others...no. And the billions in promised aid never materialized. TO this day, more than ten years later, Koreatown is still strugglin economically.

Politically, many people were jaded. Now they know that the police will only protect Beverly Hills and big business. If I remember correctly, the NRA came in there and cleaned up (meaning new members). Talk about huge missed opportunity for Democrats.

A more recent example: After Hurricane Katrina, I went to the local sporting goods store to buy water purifier and flashlights etc. The guy at the counter immediately asked me if I was buying a gun, because if I was, then too bad cause they were all sold out. Turns out, the rioting, looting in New Orleans sparked a run on home defense. I was thinking of getting a Mossberg 12-gauge but only thinking about it.

But now, I have to seriously consider it. I have a fantastic distaster kit for earthquakes, floods, fire etc in LA for both upstairs and downstairs. My roomates love me and everyone I know wants to be at my house in the event of some disaster. One BIG thing missing from my kit: home defense. Conceivably, if my house is the only one with emergency supplies, then we could become very "popular". The last thing I want is for a group of rowdies to take my kit away.

As more and more people realize that the police are NOT there to protect you, they will have to take personal responsibility for their own protection. And we have a guarantee in the constitution that says we can. (PS - I'm not knocking the police in anyshape or form).

smooth

You lost me here, were you in a local sporting goods store in Los Angeles?
Doesn't the fact that you were offered a weapon, if they hadn't been sold out contradict your statement that you have a hard time obtaining legal arms in this state?
High velocity and greater accuracy; shouldn't that be your goal if self defense is the issue?


and I echo a number of other posters, "confusing" is not a word I would use to describe all these threads on guns. Perhaps spam or annoying, but no, not confusing.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

jorgelito

Yes, I was in a sporting goods store in Los Angeles. This was just after Hurricane Katrina and being prepared for disaster was a "hot topic" of the day. I was bit surprised as I was expecting flashlights etc to be sold out but not guns. It wasn't at the forefront of my mind.

I wasn't offered a weapon, the clerk was perempting me I guess. In the vain of "If your looking to buy a gun we're all sold out" type of thing cause there was such a run on them after the events in New Orleans.

My reference to the difficulty in obtaining a weapon is simply that there's a bunch of "hoops" to jump through - application, waiting period, background check etc. especially compared with obtaining an illegal weapon where Joe Schmoe doesn't bother with checking your background etc...but he's cash only.

As for high velocity and accuracy I don't know - I'm not a gun expert which is one of the reasons I don't own a gun yet. My intention is to get the proper training as I believe owning a gun is a huge responsiblity. But the fact remains that it is a constitutionally protected right (another issue as well we can/ have debate). I don't take firearms lightly but as a separate issue, I value the right. Does that make sense? I hope that helps clarify things a bit. Oh, yeah, I guess 12-guage shotgun would be fine in relative close quarters in home defense type situations, maybe the guys in the gun thread would know. High velocity, accuracy sounds like a sniping thing and that's not really me.

What's the confusing thing about the threads? Did you find my post to be annoying or spam? It's my first post in this thread...

smooth

jorgelito,

I don't see anything confusing in the threads or spam-ish in your replies. I just think that flooding the board with a spate of gun arguments, well really one argument, becomes tedious. tedious to read and respond to. I can't imagine a member of TFP not knowing dk's position on this subject by now and the denny incident is utilized as a mere springboard to launch into the necessities of gun ownership. ok great, so here comes another thread, which is what he pretty much alluded to when he said that people didn't care about the other threads--they were falling off the front page so now the issue is pushed back to the top.

I live down the road from you, jorgelito. The "hoops" aren't as numerous and difficult as you're making them out to be, or assuming them to be. And that's evidenced by the fact that the clerk was "offering" you a weapon and he didn't have one because they were bought up. It's not like people knew katrina was going to go off and started applying weeks before, don't you agree? the hardest difficulty is obtaining a handgun, not a rifle. you don't need a gun expert to teach you all about velocity and accuracy to realize whether you would rather them over hideability when it comes to lawful defense purposes.

it's not a sniping issue, although maybe that sounds cool to some, but rather a question of what you intend to do with the weapon. Do you intend to shoot what you're aiming at and incapacitate it, or hide the thing. and yeah, a 12ga is excellent for harming another human being, but it's not very discriminate. make sure you don't harm someone you love in the process...and don't cripple it's already limited accuracy by sawing the end off to make it more portable and hideable. other than that, you have to be closer than other types of weapons, so pick your poisen I guess is the point of that.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

dksuddeth

a few things, i'll stop creating new threads, despite any change in the substance. I don't want to confuse people and put them off. Yes, gun rights are very important to me and I realize that they aren't to others, at least as much as other issues are. I'll back off for a bit.

choice of guns - this depends on a few very important variables.
municipality(locality) restrictions is a biggie. Right now, there are places like chicago and surrounding suburbs that ban handguns, but long rifles and shotguns are ok. chicago directly bans all guns except those registered before a certain date. So you may live in morton grove Ill and can't own a handgun, but can own a shotgun. weird, but there it is.

personal preference - this is very important. With 6 years of marine corps training on all kinds of small arms I can take a .45 and put 5 shots inside the size of a nickel at 7 yards within 10 seconds or put 10 rounds of an M16 inside a 3 inch circle at 300 yards, yet I couldn't hit the surface of a pond with a shotgun if I was in a boat. go figure. Some people are good with rifles, some are good with pistols, and some are good with shotguns, it's definitely a personal issue.

Most of the posting i've done to show support for the right to guns has been personal self defense and fighting the government, but disasters weren't presented very well until just recently. Jorgelito has a very good experience, as do most Californians or New Orleans, with the lawlessness that can occur in the aftermath. Survival becomes an extremely front page picture in these events. When it comes down to it, people will just as soon slit your throat than look at you if it means being able to take your weeks worth of food or water from you. It's a moot point if you waited that long to consider a gun.

i'll be making my fourth amendment post this weekend.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

nezmot

Thanks dk - I didn't mean to be an ass about it - it's just well, somethings just bring out that side of me. Like I've said in other places, in the US, with so much violence around, I'd want to be armed too - in that respect, we're in agreement. I just wish that weren't the state of affairs, is all - like in other (European) countries. I look forward to your fourth amendment post

flstf

Benelli M3 Super 90

This is a good choice for protecting your store against rioters etc.. It holds 8 shotgun shells and is selectable for pump action or semi-auto. In semi-auto mode you can probably hold off a group of intruders. My wife got this for her birthday several years ago. For home protection just chambering a round makes a threatening enough noise to scare most intruders.

dksuddeth

the sound of a shotgun slide racking a shell in the chamber can be a startling sound.

I remember the one time I got to fire a 12 gauge SPAS auto.

all I can say is WOW!

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

jorgelito

So perhaps a Mossberg 12-gauge would be a good choice then?

Marvelous Marv

This is SOOOO not what he said.

1. The second amendment DOES preserve your right to keep and bear arms.
2. The entire Bill of Rights does not grant rights--it PRESERVES the rights inherent in being a citizen (and most times, not even a citizen) of this country.

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

Marvelous Marv

High velocity is not exactly what you want. My mini-14 will shoot through an engine block, but it's not great for home defense, because it can easily go through several walls and injure someone in an entirely different house. I would submit that you want stopping power. In my mind, that would translate to either a shotgun or some combination of large caliber and hollow points.

Up until these riots, the only gun I owned was a single-shot .22 I'd had since I was a kid. I asked my roommate, a Vietnam SEAL, what he'd recommend.

He told me that although they weren't supposed to, many of those on the teams sawed off shotguns, and if they needed to clear a hut, they just stuck the barrel in the doorway and pulled the trigger. That took care of everything inside.

Considering the amount of adrenaline that would be flowing if there were an intruder in my house, a shotgun might be just what I'd want. Admittedly, it would be more appropriate if there were no family members around to become "collateral damage."

__________________
"The problem with socialism is that you eventually run out of other people's money."
Margaret Thatcher

smooth

I understand all of what you're saying in regards to home defense. I should have clarified I was thinking in mind what dk would argue the 2nd amendment is intended, for fighting the State if it ever comes down to it.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

shakran

OK I let it go when dksuddeth said it, but when two people chime in, it's time to call bullshit.

If dksuddeth didn't mean these people should have been allowed to buy the guns in the middle of the panic, then he needs to learn to state himself a lot more clearly.

That whole post followed the pattern that he's established on these myriad pro-gun posts. Spray a crapload of ideas in the first post, and the minute someone points out the fallacies, he starts protesting that gee, he never said that, when in fact he did.


No, I'm sorry, it doesn't. It preserves the right of a WELL REGULATED militia to keep and bear arms. WELL REGULATED. People running around with a brand new gun in the middle of a riot is NOT a WELL REGULATED militia. None of the other 10 in the BOR have a qualification. That doesn't mean you can ignore the one in the 2nd because it happens to be inconvenient for you.

But I really don't get why everyone gets all uptight about this argument. Even if we abolished the 2nd today, no one's going to take your guns away. It's be physically impossible at this point. We can't get rid of stuff that's already illegal - drugs, etc - what makes you think we can get rid of all the guns?

flstf

Colt A3 20" MT6700C

The Colt AR15 is a good choice for militia use. You can get pre-ban high capacity clips 30/40 rounds at most gun shows. I even got a 90 round drum for mine. With about 5 dollars worth of parts it can be converted to full auto but that is against the law unless you have a special license.

I would like to get a 50 caliber rifle like those manufactured by Barrett before they are banned. I think California has already banned them.

dksuddeth

Are you calling your own bullshit then? because you know what I posted in that paragraph was not a denigration of a waiting period, it was pointing out how a 'feel good' regulation can backfire on those that thought it was a good idea in the first place.


Do you have a problem with basic comprehension? It does not say that a well regulated militia has the right, it says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state THEN it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State,//////// the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


The BOR is a short but incomplete list of individual rights. It's insane and illogical to think that the constitution defines and lists what 'powers' the government is authorized by the people and then to believe that smack dab in the BOR it gave the government a right.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

dksuddeth

And I would dearly love a couple of these.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

How did it backfire? Because a bunch of untrained new gun owners didn't go running around shooting the wrong people? Surely you don't mean that.

Read what you wrote. Again. Very carefully. I even quoted it, twice, in this thread. Maybe you didn't MEAN what you wrote, but you did write it.


[quote]it says a militia is necessary to the security of a free state THEN it says that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. [quote]

The first qualifies the second. It points to the intent of the framers, which was not to have a thousand jackasses with brand new guns running around LA shooting anyone they see.


Speaking of reading comprehension, do we REALLY need to define "well regulated" for you? You seem to have trouble with the concept of "regulated." The number of hunting accidents and other accidental shootings each year tells us that gun ownership in this country is anything BUT well-regulated.


Once again you fail to read and understand what I wrote. I specifically said that the BOR does not TAKE AWAY the right to a gun. So for you to suggest that I did signifies either that you're not bothering to read my entire post, or that you're making stuff up in order to appear to be the winner of this little debate. Which is it?

You're falling into the same category as many vehemently pro-gun advocates. When someone points out that the 2nd does not GIVE the right, they automatically assume that person is trying to take that right away. That's a logical fallacy. I would hope debaters here on TFP could rise above that reactionary crap and actually read, and understand, what others are writing.

dksuddeth

and surely you have some backup proof for this ridiculous claim? show me through any type of historical document that this is what the intent of the framers was.




I can assure you that 'well-regulated' does not mean the national guard or a standing army. I've shown this many times and even defined 'well-regulated' according to the 18th century english dictionary.


alright, i'll give you this point that I may be completely misunderstanding what it is you're trying to say regarding this. So far, what i've been reading from you is that the second amendment is not a definition of the peoples individual right to keep and bear arms, that it only belongs to a well regulated militia. The paragraph above now seems to indicate that you might actually believe that the individual right pre-exists? correct me if i'm reading you wrong on this.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

Yeah, that would be the first part of the 2nd amendment. Well, that and the fact that the framers weren't sociopaths.





Look, you have the right to own a fishing pole too, even though the constitution does not specifically give that right. The constitution and the BOR are simply stating some rights that the founding fathers wanted to make absolutely sure would not be taken away by the states or by a later federal government.

So even if I say that some amendment doesn't give you the right to a fishing pole, that doesn't mean I think you should be forced to turn all your fishing poles in. Just because the 2nd does not specifically give the unfettered right for everyone to have a gun, does not mean that you do not have that right, or that I think you should lose that right.


and BTW I believe that yes, the militia does refer to the national guard, but that we've corrupted and changed what the national guard is and should be for. They shouldn't be in Iraq -the national guard is to defend us from invasion and to defend states from invasion/a tyrannical federal government. In modern times we have forgotten what militias are meant for. But you cannot get around the basic definition of "well regulated" no matter what you claim they meant by it. Regulated is not a word who's definition has changed in 200 years. People with no regulation whatsoever cannot be said to be regulated. It's just that simple.

ubertuber

Can we concentrate less on "scoring points" on each other and more on being articulate and understanding others? The whole "gotcha" mentality tends to send things south pretty quickly.

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

dksuddeth

those very framers and founders said that we all were the militia and they all said that every freeman has the right to arms. thats pretty clear to me that it's an individual right, not only for militia causes.


OK, now this I agree with you on.


then please explain to us how militia means 'national guard' when the national guard wasn't created until the very early 1900s.

well regulated means well organized, well disciplined, but it doesn't mean national guard or standing army of any type. you also are still misinterpreting the second. there are two parts to the amendment and they differentiate the need for a well regulated militia does not take away the right of the people to bear arms. at least thats my interpretation of it anyway.

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

shakran

In a time when everyone WAS part of the militia, and when people knew how to use the guns that were out there. Very different story from today.

The national guard is what the militia(s) became. Kind of like the Department of Defense still does the same thing even though it's no longer called the War Department.


Then explain to me why you seem to think that people with no training and who never used a gun before are part of a well organized group?

It's ONE sentence. The framers were not all grammar morons. One sentence, one subject. It's one part. Not two. And the one part says that you can have all the guns you want, but they're meant for a *well regulated militia*. NOT a bunch of yahoos that don't know the first thing about firearm safety.

dksuddeth

In US v. Cruikshank, the Supreme Court held the Enforcement Acts unconstitutional. The Fourteenth Amendment did give Congress the power to prevent interference with rights granted by the Constitution, said the Court. But the right to assemble and the right to arms were not rights granted or created by the Constitution, because they were fundamental human rights that PRE-EXISTED the Constitution:
"The right. . . of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this. . . means no more than it shall not be infringed by Congress. . . leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow citizens of the rights it recognizes"

__________________
"no amount of force can control a free man, a man whose mind is free. No, not the rack, not fission bombs, not anything. You cannot conquer a free man; the most you can do is kill him."

smooth

Besides the fact that the Cruikshank ruling was made in 1875, and you really ought to determine whether and what portions of it continue to be relevant today (they aren't), I think you would benefit signifcantly from taking a legal reasoning or law & society course. Taking such a course would help you organize your thoughts about federalism and how the Bill of Rights fits into national law v. state law v. personal rights.

For example, none of what you're arguing for here has any bearing on what you started the thread with. The firearms legislation in California is enacted by our state Congress while local ordinances are enacted by various local government and regulatory bodies. The 2nd amendment doesn't apply here for a host of reasons. Bringing up the Enforcement Act of 1870, which was passed by the US Congress to deal with Jim Crowe laws, doesn't have anything to do with a local issue in California and it doesn't even mean what you want it to.

If states were held to the standard set forth by Cruikshank, and they held to strict legal formalism (as you also want them to adhere to), states could pass any gun legislation they wanted to and the courts would do nothing.

The Cruikshank case, by the way, is a testament to the Court's self-paralysis that resulted in much harm to the citizens of this nation and the ideals for which it stands. Ironically, it's probably one of the best examples to argue against much of what you've posted in these various threads on gun control and "judicial activism." Please take the time to read the opinions of any cases, the history leading up to them, and the rulings' ramifications before using one for a point in your argument.

__________________
"The theory of a free press is that truth will emerge from free discussion, not that it will be presented perfectly and instantly in any one account." -- Walter Lippmann

"You measure democracy by the freedom it gives its dissidents, not the freedom it gives its assimilated conformists." -- Abbie Hoffman

shakran

You quote this in the same thread that you're telling me the 2nd amendment gives you the right to a gun?

Again, this bears my reasoning out. The 2nd does NOT give you the right to have a gun, but neither does it take that right away.

It's too late to bother looking up later case law but I'm pretty confident that some judge somewhere has reversed this section. The 2nd goes farther than that, as distinguished from the 1st, which says "CONGRESS shall make no law. . . " The 2nd does not say anything about congress, merely that the right shall not be infringed. Since this is distinct from the 1st's mention of congress, it should be interpreted to mean the right shall not be infringed by anyone, not just congress.

Your entire post pretty much proved what I've been saying, and failed to address the fact that the 2nd amendment is one sentence, with a conditional clause preceeding the right that it defines. You still haven't gotten away from that pesky militia bit. . .

ubertuber

Shakran, it really appears that you're reading dksuddeth's posts in twisted ways solely to be argumentative. His statements that you've quoted, "The right. . . of bearing arms for a lawful purpose. . . is not a right granted by the Constitution", and "Neither is it in any manner dependent on that instrument for its existence" aren't so unclear to me. He's saying that the rights mentioned in the Bill of Rights (existing as amendments to the Consitution) aren't granted by those amendments that mention them. They ENSURED by those amendments, as they were rights that people naturally had - and a state of being ruled by a government shouldn't be able to change them. This view makes total sense in light of the idea that rights and poweres are assumed to be retained by the people unless the government is given the power to curtail them.

Also, your comment about the brevity and clarity of the 2nd Amendment doesn't help much - it merely shows that the thing can be read in more than one way. The amendment says "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." [According to wikipedia, a copy made by the scribe who prepared the BOR carries different punctuation: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."] I read that to mean "The right of people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, because a well regulated militia is necessary to have a free state." I don't see the beginning as a conditional clause at all - it's a justification. And reading it that way plays all kind of havoc with the argument that the militia is the National Guard. Incidentally, the wikipedia article reads it in a third way (see the very first sentence at the top): "Amendment II (the Second Amendment) of the United States Constitution, which is part of the Bill of Rights, declares the necessity for "a well regulated militia", and prohibits infringement of "the right of the people to keep and bear arms"." Please excuse my quotation mark madness.

All of that stuff I typed above is incidental to my main point, which is the same that I made in post 27. I now quote my self, for repetitive goodness:

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam

ubertuber

__________________
Cogito ergo spud -- I think, therefore I yam