Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[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?

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.

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.

Ok, so you are against the repeal of 2A. Why?

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

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.

[Lemur]

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.

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.

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-

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.

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.

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?

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

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.

Good points about Loving & Lawrence. Dred Scott point was a bad point.

EDIT:

Does that serve to answer?

I's a bit squishy, but I can tolerate it. what do you think about the common use standard?

[Lemur]

It's good to know that you give superficial support to the right to own "guns".

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."

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."

[ICantSpellDawg]

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."

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?

[Lemur]

I still think it can work if it originates in the House. Why are you against this plan?

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.

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.

[W]e are playing defense from the center left (the center still doesn't give a flying frog and wont vote on it).

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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".

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

Dred Scott was overturned after the 14th amendment was ratified. His point stands that the law itself would need to be amended in reality.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.