Colorado passes Gun Control Laws

[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.

[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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

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?

[Lemur]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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?

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.

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 how we choose to read that part of the amendment..

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?

[a completely inoffensive name]

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?

Not at all, religious extremists do it all the time.

[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.

[Lemur]

is the "we" really inappropriate?

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.

You had chosen to include yourself in the American group as a "we".

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."

It's not a huge deal. It just comes off a little more omniscient than you probably intend.

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.

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.

Try being an indie for a while and then we can talk. You have no idea.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.


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."

It's not a huge deal. It just comes off a little more omniscient than you probably intend.

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 EVERYONE

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Greyblades]

It is a huge population difference. If you don't think that's a good reason to be skeptical of the comparison, I'm sorry. I don't know what to say.

*But I'll try. It comes down to logistics. Australia has less people than Canada, and Canada has less than 10% of the population of the USA. That is significant. It makes everything more difficult, more expensive, and politically more dangerous. More people are dead-set opposed to gun control in the USA than there are people in Australia. Seriously, come on. Apples and Oranges.

...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.

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.

[Husar]

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.

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

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.

[Lemur]

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.

To which I say, read the words. It's quite short:

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.

[Lemur]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

http://www.cgpgrey.com/politics-in-the-animal-kingdom/

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.

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.

[drone]

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.

Speak for yourself. Open primaries ftw!

[Conradus]

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.

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?

(European here so)

[Lemur]

And nobody pays any attention to the 3rd Amendment, which is just sad.

[Husar]

I think you're being thick on purpose. What exactly are you suggesting? That we do like the Aussies did and round up all the guns? Are you actually thinking about the population difference or are you just typing stuff?

God beware someone suggests you build roads or provide electricity to every town, I mean think of the population differences!!!
Point being that your larger, richer country also has a larger infrastructure and more tax income so I really don't see your point.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

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.

[Lemur]

If your ideology is so brittle that you cannot tolerate a plain reading of a single sentence, you've got bigger problems than passivity.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

[Papewaio]

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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 that

[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.

[Greyblades]

I think you're being thick on purpose. What exactly are you suggesting? That we do like the Aussies did and round up all the guns? Are you actually thinking about the population difference or are you just typing stuff? Its these kinds of posts that make me wonder if all foreigners aren't just a little hopeless when it comes to understanding the American viewpoint.

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.

*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.

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.

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

"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.
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"

[Greyblades]

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"

[ICantSpellDawg]

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".

[ICantSpellDawg]

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.

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.

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.