Oz was populated with criminals. You just knew they would eventually have to ban the guns. :tongue:
Printable View
Oz was populated with criminals. You just knew they would eventually have to ban the guns. :tongue:
They have a different breed of politicians. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If you are still wondering why Americans who believe in gun ownership think that people are trying to take their guns, at least you can recognize that people are trying to take their guns. We hear that they arent trying to take their guns, but in Australia pump action shotguns were confiscated and you have to show a "need" to own a bolt action .22. Nobody believes gun controllers that "nobody" is coming for your guns" because people emphatically ARE coming from your guns.
As stated earlier; The homicide rate among similar population groups between the 2 nations is very similar. It is when you consider the hyper violent ethnic cultures who drive our homicide rates, you realize that they are effectively absent from Australian society. Sounds harsh? It is, but it is true. I believe that people are equal, but cultures are certainly not.
Reasonable people should recognize that a ban of firearms, like in Australia, will likely have the effect of reducing homicides. It may also have the effect of increasing violent crime. If our culture is progressing correctly, it is conceivable that we can keep our guns and keep violent crime and murder rates decreasing exponentially as they have been for the past 20 years.
Logic, you fail at it.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Yes, I'm stupid, I get it.
I'm incapable of quoting the daily show in place of my own argument, saying "nuff said" and then accusing people who construct an alternative argument of being twits.
Australia had a massive confiscation of firearms for those results. They didn't enact an expansion of commercial background checks, instead they showed dump trucks full of peoples previously registered property being made in to steel rods. Australia had a low homicide rate, they now have a low homicide rate. The point of that video is that confiscation can happen and the world doesn't end. If you think that they will never have a mass killing again, I would wager against it. When people say that registration will likely lead to confiscation, remember the example you've cited.
Australia has a population the size of the NYC metropolitan area. In a landmass the size of the continental United States. They are a highly educated, economically affluent, ethnically homogeneous nation whose immigrants and minorities consist of those with some of the lowest criminal proclivities in the world. They are a different nation with a similar colonial history, although the right to bear arms was never fought for and the government was never violently overthrown.
The British Empire didn't want Australia and it setup several prison colonies in the some of the provinces.
So a country they didn't need full of people they didn't want. Not very hard to see why they encouraged independence.
I'm coming for your guns, except I'm not really coming, I'd rather stay here where we have fewer guns.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Your president is not really coming for your guns, neither is the NWO or whoever "they" are.
Maybe some criminals are coming to steal your guns because that'd probably be easier than breaking into a well-secured store or government building.
The whole apples and oranges argument boils down to Americans looking really bad and brainless/stubborn/outdated yet again, I'm not sure why it's so proudly presented all the time. ~;)
You're basically saying that America is a hopeless case as far as positive changes are concerned, so that's either really bad for America or you're an un-american defeatist. I thought America is great because it has the spirit of exploration and because Americans grab problems by the horns and work hard until they can solve them? You might've just as well told MLK that trying to get rid of racism is hopeless because the KKK, racism in general and slavery are far too entrenched in the american psyche since the beginning and whatnot.
If you refuse to even think about how to solve a problem then it's no surprise that you won't be able to solve it but it's not the fault of the circumstances, it's the fault of your own lack of initiative. And don't even dare to argue this, it's what you keep telling unemployed people. :stare:
Guns are a Consitutional right for Americans.
And you cannot change that because it is part of the Consitution.
After all the second amendment has been shown to allow the individual the right to bear arms as they see fit.
I don't know if "shown to allow" is quite the right way of looking at things. That's how we, as a nation, choose to read a sentence that could be read at least a couple of ways. 2A is remarkably short:Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
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.
There's a few different things going on there. Security of the state is given as the rationale, not tyranny-fighting with Patrick Swayze in Red Dawn. "Well regulated" is emphasized, which would seem to imply some sort of hierarchy and organization, things that 2A activists generally ignore. Also note that the right is given to "the people," not to individuals as such. You can choose to read "the people" as each and every individual on their own merits, but that's a deliberate choice, and not the only reading.
Anyway. For the last eighty years or so we've chosen to read "shall not be infringed" as the crucial sentence clause, and that's just how we roll, yo. But that's a function of politics, courts, case law, and so forth. It's not the inevitable or only reading of 2A.
Shown by the Supreme Court that the individual rights model outranks the collective rights one.
I guess what rubs me the wrong way is the verb "shown." The Supreme Court chooses an interpretation; they don't dig up golden plates left in their backyard by the angel Moroni and reveal God's wisdom. It's a decision based on logic, precedent, morals, and yes, politics.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
So ... we've interpreted the Second Amendment in a particular way for 80 years or so. That doesn't make it Holy Writ, inarguable, or the Founders' True Intent. It's a consensus. This distinction may seem minor, but to me it's important.
That's fine. I'm sure you can appeal with a higher court. Oops apparently public opinion doesn't outrank the Supreme Court, neither does any other Court in the US.
So until the amendment is amended it has been shown by the highest rank Judiciary that individualism in this instance trumps collective rights.
There you go with "shown" again; nobody is showing anything. That's how we choose to read that part of the amendment. A future court could legitimately decide on a different reading. Language is imprecise and elastic, which is why lawyers stay employed, and why nobody codes in English grammar. Not even Strunk and White can get a game of Pong onscreen.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
You hear people say that "It isn't an individual right, it's only for militia's, which should be well regulated by the government. Also, we don't need them anymore because the government is good and they are outdated fighting forces which could never be successful at opposing tyranny. So, the amendment is stupid and outdated and should be overturned. We just want to know where your guns are and who has them - this is just reasonable and common sense. We can do this because it hasn't resulted in the end of the world in the UK or Australia, who we emulate on gun control. Also, once we know who has them we won't confiscate them, even though we want to and don't believe that you have a right to them as individuals and even though other countries have had success confiscating after they've had them registered. We only want the ones that look especially dangerous anyway, even though they are functionally equivalent to handguns, shotguns, and rifles that nearly everyone has. But we won't come for them, probably. But why shouldn't we? Anyone who says that we will is crazy and paranoid"
It's a rambling mess.
And you wonder why people who like guns and don't see gun crime don't want anything to do with this. You all know why we don't want to start down that path, we know what is down the path. This isn't a slippery slope, it's merely your stated objective, which can't get off the ground at the moment.
You're conflating about three different arguments, making them badly, and then using this self-generated caricature to justify your own position. Weaksauce.
Try responding to an individual rather than your imagined foe.
I've heard all of these things in this thread. What is your argument? I've only heard support for every democratic proposal from you. The only time you find fault with them is when they don't have the ability to pass in this climate. There simply is no "too far" when it comes to gun rights. You don't even believe that we have an individual right, that was merely the error in judgement by the court. How much respect for an individuals right to own a gun when you don't believe that right exists? You simply have no common ground with me on this issue. You flat out do not believe that I have a right to own my firearms. I oppose you and your ideas to remove these rights.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If you had the final vote to overturn 2A, you would do it.
Well, I was talking to Pape about the use of the verb "shown" in the context of the Supreme Court interpreting the Second Amendment. I was saying that the Supreme Court's decisions are not revealed holy truth, but rather decisions on how to interpret language, which is (by virtue of being a human language) vague, imprecise, and prone to multiple readings.
If you read the last six posts or so you'd be crystal clear on that bit of discussion.
You jumping in to slay your straw man was a bit of a non sequitur.
-response to the edit-
Right, by saying that the current reading of 2A is not the only or inevitable reading, I reveal myself as the boogeyman. Boo!
I shoot guns, I was raised in a military family, and I enjoy guns. I don't want to see 2A repealed, although I do think our collective interpretation of it is particular, and not inevitable.
And if I actually believed any of that, or expressed such a belief anywhere, you might have the beginnings of a point.Quote:
You flat out do not believe that I have a right to own my firearms. I oppose you and your ideas to remove these rights.
If you had the final vote to overturn 2A, you would do it.
Please feel free to show me where I have expressed those opinions. The Backroom is now searchable. Please, go ahead. Bring the noise, brutha.
It's not just their musings and whims, it is stare decisis. It cannot just be ignored if it is shown to be the body of the interpretation of law. Or, it could be, but seldom is for justices deciding cases. They don't just wake up after years of it clearly being an individual and collective right and say "nope, our mistake". You make it sound like they just shake a magic 8-ball.
Thanks for dodging and not offering your own underlying ideological concept of the right to bear arms or defend oneself or possessions. Cover yourself with your wiki logical fallacy terminology as you often do, but you still have done nothing but criticize the ideas of your opposition and appeal to emotion. Let's see some principle other than your beloved "moderation". Where do you want laws to go?
Thing with law and precedence is that once a ruling is made it becomes precedence. Only thing that can change that is a ruling by a higher court or a change in the law the precedence refers to. There is no higher court, so it will take a change in the law. In this case an amendment as it is a Consitutional change.
The highest courts are very unlikely to change their predecessors decisions until a law is significantly changed.
Ok, so you are against the repeal of 2A. Why?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Again, show me where I have called for the repeal of 2A.
Also, stare decisis just means "abiding by precedent." If you actually read what I was saying to Pape, you'd see that I mentioned precedent, as well as moral, logical, and political considerations. All of which factor into a judge's decisions. How is that controversial?
Incorrect. The highest courts are certainly bound to pay more attention to their own precedent, but by your logic, Dred Scott could never have been overturned, and the Supreme Court would never reverse itself on a position. Ever. Okay, it's a little more complicated than I'm making it sound, but I think the Org's legal eagles will back me up here. The Supremes do change interpretations over time. This is not a bad thing. I, for one, am glad to see interracial marriage and consensual buggery made legal by Supreme fiat.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Why am I not in favor of a position I have never advocated? Dude, you either need to drink more or less. Not sure which applies.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I agree. 2A has been incorporated to the States as well. It really would take an amendment process to change that now.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
The idea that the 2nd amendment was ever viewed by anyone as a purely collective right exists in the mind of a leftist fantasy. It's a reading that could have been the case at the nations founding, with difficulty from English common law, but not since then.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Dred Scott was overturned after the 14th amendment was ratified. His point stands that the law itself would need to be amended in reality.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Can you outline your understanding of what the right means and why it is still relevant? It's a cop-out to just say "2A can stay, guns are ok". You have to have a deeper understanding of it and believe that rights should not be withdrawn as easily as some would suggest.
So by suggesting an alternate legitimate reading of 2A, I'm indulging in "leftist fantasy"? Seems more like I stepped on the toe of a sacred cow, and you're indulging in some internet rage.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Oh look, I poked the sacred 2A cow. I MUST BE A MARXIST LEFTIST SOCIALIST HIPPIE!
Read the damn sentence without the NRA looking over your shoulder. Read the actual effing words. There's more than one way to read the intent. That's not leftis, rightist, communist, Keynesian, Muslim, or anarchist. It's common sense.
Sorry I poked your cow.
-edit-
Loving v. Virginia, no amendment needed, reinterpretation.
Lawrence v. Texas, no amendment needed, reinterpretation.
-edit of the edit-
Sure, happy to do so. First of all, it's in the effing Constitution, and we, as a society, have chosen to interpret it to mean an individual's right to bear arms. I'm cool with that.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Secondly, guns have played a huge cultural and practical role in the USA since before our founding as a nation. I am a conservative (using the word in the classical, not modern sense) in that I don't like to see big changes to things that have been around a long time (unless someone can demonstrate a compelling rationale for such a change, and an ironclad plan for the aftermath of a change). I'm much more Burke than Rousseau. Very gradual change we can believe in.
You'll note that I didn't give a damn about the assault weapons ban or the magazine capacity ban. Bad ideas. What lit me off was the defeat of the background checks.
All of our rights have boundaries. My First Amendment right to religion, for example, does not allow me to engage in human sacrifice to Cthulhu. My right of assembly does not mean I can have a party in the middle of the street. My right to free speech does not mean I can make verbal or written threats to another citizen without repercussions. And so on and so forth; our rights are not and never have been absolutes.
So yeah, when I see common-sense measures to control the flow of guns to criminals and the insane beaten down by fanatics, I get mad. What makes me extra-special crazy is that in the long run, such limitations will be good for gun rights. By way of comparison, if there were driving absolutists who insisted that there must be no stop signs and no crosswalks, they would make cars less popular in the long run. I would be irritated by those people. Not because I hate cars, but because I like cars and I like driving.
Does that serve to answer?
I guard the rights protected in the Constitution jealously. I look to expand them. Increasingly all of them, even the ones that I have to hold my nose about (like the anti-sodomy laws overturning). I try to have principle in the things that I think and believe deeply. I don't just believe in them because most people believe in them and because I don't care enough about them to have a strong opinion. like some others might. It's good to know that you give superficial support to the right to own "guns". I just know the arguments that you were using and you were equivocating. It seems that you could easily support either interpretation based on the wind change. It suggests that if one were to gain popularity, you wouldn't fight for individual right. You've called me unethical. My ethics don't value fair-weather friends when the going gets rough.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Good points about Loving & Lawrence. Dred Scott point was a bad point.
EDIT:I's a bit squishy, but I can tolerate it. what do you think about the common use standard?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Son, you might want to look into the passive-aggressive use of "quotes." If you want to slam me, put on your big boy pants and do it "properly."Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
If you read the bit I wrote in response to your WHY U LIKE 2A question, you will see that I believe absolutism is bad for our rights in the long run. You win battles with fanaticism, but you lose wars.
Ever read King Lear? "I loved her not wisely, but too well." In the case of the NRA, I'd amend it to, "I loved guns not wisely, but too well."
I read it. You don't have to tell me. I wanted background checks enough that I was willing to just take the Manchin-Toomey agreement and be done with it. I still think it can work if it originates in the House. Why are you against this plan? If it comes from the House and expands gun rights at the same time as it closes up sales loopholes, why are you ideologically opposed to the point of wrath? Would you prefer to wait 2 more years in case the Democrats take the House? The blood will be on your hands for the lives lost in the interim!... How does that feel?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
I didn't say they won't reverse. I just said that they are just unlikely too... that is the idea about precedence. it gives a guideline to future interpretations of the law.
Nothing is impossible, but your read is right. It is unlikely to the extreme. Time will tell. I hope that it is more likely that they require states to do shall issue permits, require CCW reciprocity, and end the "gun free school zones".Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I'm just letting off steam. It's been months of fighting passionately about this issue plus one or two thousand dollars in new guns... We were winning handily prior to scorched earth defeat of the law, but now we are playing defense from the center left (the center still doesn't give a flying frog and wont vote on it). We can turn it around if the House picks it up again this summer. We need people like Lemur to stop mini-frothing at the mouth and build our coalition with moderate democrats back up.
Because I don't believe it will happen. If there were any real will to strengthen background checks, and more importantly crack down on straw purchases (and the FFL dealers who enable them), the two houses could have worked it out. Manchin-Toomey was a sufficient starting point, with amendment and reconciliation something decent could have occurred. The talk about "we'll get back to that" strikes me as the posturing of politicians who intend to do nothing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Nah, they beat it down like a two-dollar whore, walked away whistling, and now swear they love working women. There's a very good reason Congress has a twelve percent approval rating.
You should be playing defense. It was a disgusting spectacle. And as for what you imagine the center this-or-that to believe, you might want to check the polling. Independents are the reason individual senators are dropping in the polls. Now, you can brush that off by pointing out that the elections for the cretins won't happen for a couple of years, and that's a legitimate argument. But to say that only lefties are irritated by the defeat of the background check bill is self-serving and counter-factual.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
If it will hurt us at the polls in 2014, assure yourself that we will do something. The plan at the moment is that it won't. We have every intention of walking away from this.. IF voters allow us to. If they don't, we will bring it up again. Honestly, we should save loophole filling for when we stand to gain ground on 2A rights. It doesnt make sense to cave because of current events and emotion when the law has nothing to do with the occurrence. I know it sounds cold, but Congressmen and women get to where they are and stay there by adeptly riding the uncontrolled emotions of the huddled electorate because they themselves are cold and calculating.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
We will never claim to love gun control, but something like this plan we don't despise and would prefer to use as currency when the exchange rate is higher. I can see the logic in that. I could be wrong, as you say, but we don't normally have an escape route planned and visible, like a pressure release valve.
Does my plan sound stupid or whimsical? It doesn't feel like one of my desperate "Mitt Romney can pull it off in the end, I just know it" moments. I think it is sound. Do you resist it because it is fanciful, or because it is more cold/clever than you want to give the GOP credit for?
It's really creepy when you talk in the first person plural as though you are some sort of avatar of all Republicans, NRA loyalists, and 2A fanatics. You don't speak for them; you speak for yourself. Just like the rest of us.
Eh, I guess it is creepy. In what role can I do it when it won't sound creepy?
It's weird. I am one of them, and I am speaking about what I think that "they" will do. It becomes a "we" at some point. I make it clear that it might not happen this way, but is the "we" really inappropriate? Must I actually have an official representative role in order to speak in the first person about a group that I am part of is what I'm asking?
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
You've just done it with Pape yourself. You have chosen to include yourself in the American group as a "we". This is just how you've chosen to represent it to an outsider. It would be off for me to do it as though I were on the Supere court, because I am not a part of that whole. I am a part of the whole NRA, GOP and USA, however. Maybe I had just used "we" too much in the same paragraph?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Not at all, religious extremists do it all the time.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Maybe it's because so few people choose to identify themselves as part of a political party, instead attempting to show how "independent" they are. I'm a freaking nut and I'm not afraid to through my hat in on a few issues and take one for the team.
It's more in how it gets used. Sometimes it's cool, but when you talk about long-range plans and specific maneuvers which you, personally, have no way of knowing with any certainty, it verges over into the creepy. It's not a game-stopper, by any means.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Right, I used "we" to assert some pretty uncontroversial positions that the majority of Americans have agreed upon. I'm not projecting what we will do, or how we will do it, rather I'm saying, "This is how we have done things." It's a little bit different from saying, for example, "And if X happens we shall do Y until Z occurs, in which case we will do A."Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
It's not a huge deal. It just comes off a little more omniscient than you probably intend.
Lordy, that hasn't been my experience at all. I have taken so much **** for being an independent, I can't even begin to express the bother. Most everyone I know personally is a registered Dem or Repub. I try to avoid having it come up in conversation, because they all look at you like you're from Uranus when they find out you're a registered indie. It's more annoying than gratifying, trust me.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Try being an indie for a while and then we can talk. You have no idea.
I see your point. I like to convince people of things, not creep them out. I will watch. I don't know how else to communicate speculative strategic planning. I'm out for the night. GUNS FOR EVERYONEQuote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
If you are not a registered indie, you are doing it wrong. What's the point of politics if you think you have it all figured out to begin with? If you want to identify as one side or the other, just vote for the candidate you want. No need to slap a label on yourself and alienate everyone you want to talk to.
...again, why? All a larger population base means is that you'd have to use a larger amount of resources to carry it out, I think america can easily provide those resources, and if it's too hard for one person or agency to manage, hire more managers, I think america has enough of those too.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Mate, you have an argument buried there, (popular support) but logistics aint it. If it was sound it would also mean america couldn't do anything beyond state, or even county level, and jokes about the federal level's incompetence aside, america most certainly can.
http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
Being a registered indie would give the party he does not favor the majority more easily. As such he chooses to vote for the party that is more in line with his ideas but actually has a chance to win. Basically a common FPTP problem as the videos explain. Which was also my point when I said your laws are too old and imperfect, if even your voting process is flawed to the bone, how can the 2nd amendment be that holy? Not that I expect any of this to change anytime soon, I just wanted to point it out.
To which I say, read the words. It's quite short:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
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.
Sure, yeah, as I've said many times in this thread, that interpretation is how we roll. It's a settled thing. What amazes me is the sacred cow aspect of even suggesting there might be an alternative reading. If I had any idea how freaked out that would make people, honestly, I would never have brought it up.
Not really. Just because you do not register as a Republican does not hurt the Republican Party. You can still donate to them and vote for them in every election. What you can't do is choose who the Republican candidate will be, but what you can do is actually have a meaningful conversation with someone who would otherwise just write you off for being on the other team.Quote:
Originally Posted by Husar
Speak for yourself. Open primaries ftw!Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
If I just read that line, the point of the amendment seems to be to guard the state against foreign intrusions. Only subject states aren't free. A tyranical goverment still has a free state. But I don't think that view has ever been accepted?Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
(European here so)
And nobody pays any attention to the 3rd Amendment, which is just sad.
https://i.imgur.com/mcdAFz9.jpg
https://i.imgur.com/H1YHptB.jpg
God beware someone suggests you build roads or provide electricity to every town, I mean think of the population differences!!!Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
Point being that your larger, richer country also has a larger infrastructure and more tax income so I really don't see your point.
Have you not noticed that we treat it as a sacred cow because it is a sacred cow? It's not like we are bubble yum fans who secretly prefer bubblicious (which is clearly better). The idea that you would target the second amendment with the narrowest possible meaning which is ahistorical suggest that you could use the same standard with our other rights. You seem to be suggesting that you support the 2a, but could just as easily support the view that it isn't what we think it is. You treat the foundation of our Republic and its values with a glib passivity. Passivity has seldom proven to be an effective defender of rights and values.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Trust that we would be substantially irked if you suggested that we have freedom of assembly, but not to groups larger than 3. Freedom of Religion, but not to irreligion. Freedom of speech, but not that which is deemed controversial. It can be rationally argued that a core reason for a right to bear arms enacted so shortly after fighting off tyranny was included in the event that this would happen again. It is odd and unsettling that you would suggest this as though all arguments were created equal. One of the many reasons why stare decisis includes both a collective and individual right for multiple lawful purposes is because that argument is more logically and historically compelling. I would hope that, while an argument could be made for the alternative reading, you recognize that the current reading is more compelling. NOT merely equally compelling but historically less fortunate because of a bad flip of the coin.
If your ideology is so brittle that you cannot tolerate a plain reading of a single sentence, you've got bigger problems than passivity.
My ideology isn't brittle on this issue. My ideology may be incorrect, but it is logically consistent, firmly held and tempered coldly. I am suggesting that you do not have an ideology on this issue. You have a fluid passivity on this issue. It is squishy. You don't care enough to attack it and don't care enough to defend it. I guess if you feel that dispassionately about a topic this makes sense, but this is a pretty heady issue. Squishiness of this magnitude is traditionally reserved in my world for types of pizza's ordered, action movies watched, say yes to the dress, etc.Quote:
Originally Posted by Lemur
Areas where my ideology is squishy are in labor relations, tax policy, immigration, etc. Bill of rights issues I normally go full bore (pun unintended, then liked, then not edited out because it became intended). Equality in law, freedom of religion, due process, lawful search and seizure, right to keep and bare arms, assembly, speech, powers not enumerated, etc. Not squishy on those, I want them expanded, flat out, at the expense of government power.
Whilst there is a reasonable person test for how people handle themselves in situations, I don't think there is the equivalent for how one reads or interprets a law.
Laws are read and interpreted in a particular way. Much like theory in science is totally different to how a layman may plainly interpret what theory means, so does most legal writings have very technical jargon that is not equivalent to plain language.
Everyday language, plain, understandable with common sense incorporated in it is not how many laws are made. You can't blame those who have to interpret these... It's the lawmakers... So blame congress and the founding fathers for the difficulties.
As for the second amendment. My plain reading of it was that it was for the collective security of the state. However that's not how the latest set of interpretations from the Supreme Court has ran.
Best bet is to amend the amendment into modern language and explicitly state it as an individual right with responsibilities to the collective or a collective security method.
Liberals couldn't beat a filibuster in a Senate which they controlled in order to pass relatively innocuous background checks expansion. It's the "best bet" to instead try to amend the US constitution? Good luck with thatQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
I didn't say the odds were very good :). Just the best option if it has stalled in one of the three branches is to go through another.
Are you being thick on purpose? The majority of your argument as far as I could gather was that the prospect impossible because of the size of the population was far greater than in australia. As I said that is an absurd argument.Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
If the american government seriously wanted to take the american people's liberty, the guns in the posession of your civilian population could do jack to stop it, bullets cant beat tanks, planes, missiles or helicopters. Once upon a time a bunch of civillians with guns might have been powerful enough to challenge the US government. Now, the second amendment is obsolete and a gun is less useful for countering tyranny than fertilizer.Quote:
*As for the 2nd Amendment, it exists so that the people have the ability to protect their own freedom, in all its nebulous and paranoid glory. And it should stay that way. Lemur suggesting that the 2A has nothing to do with overthrowing a potentially tyrannical government kind of blows my mind though. That's like suggesting forks aren't for eating.
"Changing the "fundamental law" is a two-part process of three steps: amendments are proposed then they must be ratified by the states. An Amendment can be proposed one of two ways. Both ways have two steps. It can be proposed by Congress, and ratified by the states. Or on demand of two-thirds of the state legislatures, Congress could call an Article V Convention to propose an amendment, or amendments, which would only be valid if ratified by a vote of three-fourths of the states.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
To date, all amendments, whether ratified or not, have been proposed by a two-thirds vote in each house of Congress. Over 10,000 constitutional amendments have been introduced in Congress since 1789; during the last several decades, between 100 and 200 have been offered in a typical congressional year. Most of these ideas never leave Congressional committee, and of those reported to the floor for a vote, far fewer get proposed by Congress to the states for ratification.[i]
In the first step, the proposed Amendment must be supported by two-thirds in Congress, both House and Senate. The second step requires a three-fourths majority of the states ratifying the amendment. Congress determines whether the state legislatures or special state conventions ratify the amendment"
That's like saying "I couldn't make it the full 5k, so I think I will try the Marathon"
I know you are trying to say "I couldn't make it the full 5 Kilometers, so I think I will try the Marathon" but I choose to read it as "I couldnt get the full 5 grand so I think I will run away before the loan sharks get here"Quote:
That's like saying "I couldn't make it the full 5k, so I think I will try the Marathon"
Ahhh, sorry. In my region of the U.S., where we don't use metric, people refer to running 3.something miles as "the 5k".
Yes, rock beats scissors, but to pretend that the US government could withstand even 5 million militants, some with college degrees or heavy technical knowledge, with the nominal support of half the population is a bit foolish on it's own. Small arms would struggle to be effective against the kind of military that we have here, but to pretend that an army of 1.4 million active duty troops would retain those numbers in a civil insurrection or be able to cope with an educated population 10 times more numerous than Afghanistan in a landmass 20 times larger than Afghanistan... I think that there would be a fighting chance. I wouldn't write them off is all I'm saying. Barbarian's and self-delusion have collapsed empires throughout history.Quote:
Originally Posted by Greyblades
If it has the US army on it's side, then yes it most certainly can. 5 million men with small arms could do jack squat against anything heavier than a humvee, assuming they even get anywhere near the army and arent just bombed and shelled from the next state over. The deciding point in this scenario would be if the army supports the government. If yes, the 5 million would be so outclassed they'd be dead in hours, if not, the government will be defeated in seconds. If there is division the war would be primarily fought by the two sides of the army, those 5 million would just get in the way.Quote:
Yes, rock beats scissors, but to pretend that the US government could withstand even 5 million militants, some with college degrees or heavy technical knowledge, with the nominal support of half the population is a bit foolish on it's own.
Best thing those 5 million could do is do what the iraqi's and afghans are doing right now: guerilla warfare. And guerilla warfare is less about guns than explosives which, if I remember correctly, arent covered under the 2nd amendment.
Edit: I would like to note that the above was written before I saw the rest of ICSD's edit.
Most runners I know refer to it as 5k not 5 kilometer or 5km.
=][=
The highest court has essentially made its ruling. Case closed.
POTUS itself can't really change the situation.
Waiting for all the Judges to pass away and a less conservative bench to be selected is putting outcome to chance. It isn't the 5k or 42k or ultra marathon option. These are all choices you can make to do if you put in the personal effort. Stacking in your favour is winning the lottery. It is putting it down to chance and whimsy.
That leaves the only option, which is a very long shot, to get an amendment ratified. So it's swapping waiting to get rich by lottery to run the 42k in a bucket list.
You're right, my fault.Quote:
Originally Posted by a completely inoffensive name
The system is still horribly bad though.
The people and guns are not the issue, no matter how numerous they are, they can all turn all their guns in and they can all be destroyed. It may take a month longer than elsewhere to collect them all but don't tell me it can't be done, there are huge trucks which can carry a lot of guns, and there are many trucks in America. And many people to drive many trucks with many guns, so that's really no problem. The ideological barriers are exactly why we keep discussing this and they're the real issue. And when we Europeans stop discussing this, they will be gone or we'll keep discussing this. If you want to make me stop discussing it, that can't be done, there's an ideological barrier. :shrug:Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
As I already demonsrtated a page or two ago, all of our first amendment rights have boundaries. Making up absurd examples to somehow demonstrate that they don't ... I'm not even sure what your'e doing.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Please show me where I have said that. Man, I wish I said half of the illogical provocative stuff you put in my mouth. I'd be a firebrand!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
This all started with another Orgah talking about how the court had "shown" the meaning of an amendment, which rubbed me the wrong way. Courts do not reveal a holy truth; they decide on an interpretation. Is that a controversial position? Human language is vague, imprecise, and can be read in many ways. Is that a controversial position? I demonstrated that even a simple one-sentence amendment can be read a couple of ways. Is that a controversial position? And then I said that we, as a nation, have settled on a particular interpretation. Is that a controversial position?
If you have sacred cows that Others Must Not Question, then your ideology is brittle. Fear and outrage at having an assumption examined isn't exactly the sign of a well-tempered belief system.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Correct, I'm not much of a footsoldier for anybody. Which always seems to enrage the loyal footsoldiers, who cannot imagine that anyone out there is not in some way a loyal footsoldier. If not a footsoldier then ... COWARD!Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
I'm a footsoldier sometimes. Occasionally you get things done by forging your own path, other times people need to band together. You do recognize the value of a divide and conquer strategy. Surely, the inverse strategy would be stand together and repel the conquerers.
No man is an island. What would you fight for? What do you believe in? Is family the only thing g worth getting pumped up about and defending, or are there other principles in play?
Dude, based on your habit of ignoring what I actually write in favor of made-up squishy things, am I obligated to respond? Do I gotta?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
It's amazing that the rage and energy spent on this question can not be directed to sorting out something that is both obvious, and might make a real difference to individuals-perhaps even the nation:P
http://swampland.time.com/2013/05/08...lling-secrecy/
No, you don't have to. BTW, you accused me in around 20 posts of being unethical and against Manchin-Toomey, in spite of 20 posts pointing out my squishy support for it. Maybe both of our instances were wrong, but not far off the mark. I was barely for Toomey Manchin, you are barely for the Second Amendment.
Please feel free to show me where I have said that. Sigh. You seem to believe that not embracing the NRA = not really supporting the right to keep and bear arms. Obviously, this is false.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
And yeah, your triumphalism over the defeat of a bill that would have probably strengthened the Second Amendment struck me as utterly amoral and self-defeating. And your whole glib "criminals will get guns anyway" line of rhetoric is so vacuous that it's almost impossible to take seriously. Criminals will just get into your car, so don't lock it. Making life harder for criminals is a worthy goal, a moral goal. Dismissing common-sense measures to limit the damage they do is ... well, it appears to be ethically challenged.
Shouldn't the right to bear arms include the ability to make your own for personal use?
After all women bear children...
The NRA is a powerhouse in the battle to retain the right to keep and bear arms. You don't support the NRA, you don't own firearms, you reject the notion that small arms would be effective against government, you most likely have a very low crime rate where you live, you take potshots at every pro2a argument there is. I don't see you as someone who defends it.
I believe in trade unions when the going gets rough. Solidarity is important in harnessing power for little nobodies like you and I. You reject common cause and think that your agenda will go places. I don't think so. Like 2a, don't like current NRA positions on every issue, join it, explain a better way.
Yes to making your ownQuote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
Not really, it was just more about the ideological barriers which I mentioned in my reply. Their existence is not a counterpoint to what I say because my point is that they need to go. I'm discussing this with you to remove your ideological barriers to gun control by telling you that opposing or not promoting gun control based on the notion that it wouldn't work anyway is an ideological barrier in itself. ~;)Quote:
Originally Posted by Gelatinous Cube
You personally wouldn't mind gun control but you keep telling people it wouldn't work and shouldn't happen because of A, B, and C, that's an ideological barrier of sorts. I'm aware of the gun nuts, I saw some hilarious videos on youtube. They shouldn't be an issue, if you clearly decide as a majority that you want to reduce the amount of guns floating around, then you can do it without taking their guns away or starting a huge civil war. On the other hand, HopAlongBunny is right in that energy should be spent elsewhere first. The current system you have is so inefficient that even if the majority of Americans want something, like the 90% who want background checks, it still won't happen if certain minorities do not want it. Quite frankly, that's crazy.
You can't get anything done like this, you have to get politically active as a population and campaign for fundamental changes that result in a voting system where every part of the population gets a representation in politics. In other words you need more than two parties and coalition governments built on compromise. However, for some reason people do get politically active only by plastering their front yards with posters of the two candidates every four years, which just supports the current mess. Hoping for independents to gain traction won't work because they won't, that's a mathematical barrier of the FPTP voting system.
The topic would be much more interesting if it didn't boil down to a two-positions system where one side wants all guns for everyone and the other no guns for noone, there are systems in between after all that are still better than gundorado.
I'm frantically trying to get a job out of state at this point. Maybe I wouldn't be as politically rabid if I just got out of here. I love the people, I just utterly despise their politics and the way that they operate like a herd of sheep on the issues of the day. I am ALWAYS outside of that herd. Even when there is common ground it evaporates pretty quickly. North Carolina is my dream State.
Cost of living? Unbelievable. Unemployment rate/hiring prospects? Nonexistant. Taxes? You couldn't take it for a minute. My parents are paying 13k a year for 2500 sqft and 1/3 acre. Buddy just bought his first home for 450k. Unreal.
NO PAY DIFFERENTIAL
I guess I could always live in Germany and hate it even more.
The bigger the move the bigger the culture shock. Be it countryside to townies to city to moving an entire country.
Most people react to the change by latching on to their prior cultural identity. Kids tend to get even stronger traits brought out. Parents will talk about their bad day at work in the new environment and how good it was in the previous. We tend not to state why we've moved or the good things either about the new environment. Kids views become more strongly effected and they tend to polarize quite strongly against their new surroundings.
I expect that you came from a more strong gun culture community. I wonder if that same community is as pro guns as it used to be or has changed in either direction.
=][=
As for the cost of living... I spend about as much in mortgage for a place a third the size which is 20 miles from the CBD... NY is cheaper then Sydney.
My mom & Dad moved from Tx because of the Reptiles and the heat. I go places because of that. No one in my culture has ever owned or been concerned with gun culture. I'm building it one person at a time. We came from a place in Tx called "Kingwood" - it's where northerners lived. People from Michigan, Illinois, NY, NJ. We knew very few texans, except for the ones with the blowout hairdo's. I was a little guy.Quote:
Originally Posted by Papewaio
How do you know? Have you been here? Do I need to be worried?Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg
Hahaha. Only as a baby.
Never understood why people are so afraid of other who think differently than them. So small minded.Quote:
Originally Posted by ICantSpellDawg