Weapons on Metro buses

Please limit discussion in this area to local and state politics.
jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:50 am

Gentle Man wrote:
Ducatista wrote:Why?


Why do I open carry as opposed to conceal?

For a number of reasons, including but not limited to:

1) It promotes the right to keep and bear arms. People see it's not just an abstract right but a right that some people choose to exercise.

Yeah, you never know when you might encouter a scurrilous runaway slave riding on the bus with you, and then you can use the powers entrusted to you in the 2nd amendment to return him to his rightful massa'.

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:55 am

jonnygothispen wrote:There's no doubt that ridership will be less than what it would've been. And although the unconstitutional ruling goes against the "profits before people" creed of Republicans, it's really campaign $s before anything else.


Excuse me, Attorney F. Lee Dumbass. Unconstitutional ruling? First of all, I'm doubtful you've so much as read the court's opinion.

And unconstitutional? The state supreme court is bound by the interpretations of the U.S. Supreme court. Are you implying that the state court's opinion is inconsistent with D.C. v Heller? Would you care to point out where?

Or are you implying that the state's highest court ignored the provisions of the Wisconsin Constitution Article I, Section 25: "Right to keep and bear arms. The people have the right to keep and bear arms for security, defense, hunting, recreation or any other lawful purpose."? If so, kindly point out those areas of the opinion that run afoul of the state constitution. Neither of the dissenting justices claimed anything about the majority opinion was unconstitutional. But I'm sure your qualifications and knowledge of constitutional law surpass those justices.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Mar 09, 2017 10:19 am

Gentle Man wrote:... I'm sure your qualifications and knowledge of constitutional law surpass those justices.
Where did you get the idea that it was my interpretation? I'm only quoting what the people who wrote it said when they stressed it was all about keeping the militias, otherwise known as the slave patrols at the time. When the 2nd amendment is read in the vein of orginal intent, there is no confusion between the 1st 1/2 of the sentence and the 2nd 1/2. Reading it using your NRA 'new-age' interpretation, one that activist judges only recently used for the very 1st time in over 225 years, it looks like someone who's bi-polar wrote it.

Regardless of what you believe, the only reason for allowing people to have arms would be to provide for their safety and security. And you're opposed to that if it inconveniences you.

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:51 am

jonnygothispen wrote:
Gentle Man wrote:... I'm sure your qualifications and knowledge of constitutional law surpass those justices.
Where did you get the idea that it was my interpretation? I'm only quoting what the people who wrote it said when they stressed it was all about keeping the militias, otherwise known as the slave patrols at the time. When the 2nd amendment is read in the vein of orginal intent, there is no confusion between the 1st 1/2 of the sentence and the 2nd 1/2. Reading it using your NRA 'new-age' interpretation, one that activist judges only recently used for the very 1st time in over 225 years, it looks like someone who's bi-polar wrote it.

Regardless of what you believe, the only reason for allowing people to have arms would be to provide for their safety and security. And you're opposed to that if it inconveniences you.


Yes, I find infringements of a right that the highest law of the land says "shall not be infringed" to be at most inconvenient. I also would find being hurt or killed by a criminal attack inconvenient also.

Still hallucinating this slave patrol BS I see. My mom is almost 90 years old and has Alzheimer's but she seems to be retaining a better grasp on reality than you. Since you are one to insist on looking at the actual words of the 2nd Amendment time after time, kindly point out the references to slave patrols in it. If you can't find any, then cite the Supreme Courts opinions that have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as having a purpose related to slave patrols. If you can't provide that, then perhaps you should eat shit. It's pretty difficult to maintain that the true meaning of the Second Amendment is something that is contained neither in the wording of the Amendment nor in any court's interpretation of it. It's also hard to maintain that all of the states that ratified the amendment, including those with no slavery and opposed to slavery would vote to ratify an amendment, which according to you was intended to be of assistance to the practice of slavery in one particular state. Most of these states had their own constitutional protections of a right to keep and bear arms, so are you also maintaining that each state understood the right as intended to promote the practice of slavery when they put it into their individual state constitutions?

Finally, since you putting such great weight-- in fact your entire argument-- on supposed comments about the intent of the Second Amendment why not consider these other comments about it's intent?

Tench Coxe, a delegate from Pennsylvania to the Continental Congress wrote this very NRA-new age sounding comment in 1792:

As civil rulers, not having their duty to the people duly before them, may attempt to tyrannize, and as the military forces which must be occasionally raised to defend our country, might pervert their power to the injury of their fellow citizens, the people are confirmed by the next article in their right to keep and bear their private arms.


Thomas Jefferson wrote this very NRA-new age sounding comment in 1776:

No freeman shall ever be debarred the use of arms.


Patrick Henry uttered this NRA-new age sounding statement in 1788:

Where and when did freedom exist when the power of the sword and purse were given up from the people?


Alexander Hamilton wrote this rather NRA-new age sounding passage in Federalist 29:

If circumstances should at any time oblige the government to form an army of any magnitude that army can never be formidable to the liberties of the people while there is a large body of citizens, little, if at all, inferior to them in discipline and the use of arms, who stand ready to defend their own rights and those of their fellow-citizens. This appears to me the only substitute that can be devised for a standing army, and the best possible security against it, if it should exist.


And Noah Webster wrote this NRA new-age comment:

Before a standing army can rule, the people must be disarmed; as they are in almost every kingdom of Europe. The supreme power in America cannot enforce unjust laws by the sword; because the whole body of the people are armed, and constitute a force superior to any bands of regular troops that can be, on any pretense, raised in the United States.


As for the judges only recently using the "NRA new-age interpretation" perhaps you would be enlightened by a reading of United States v. Cruikshank which dates from 1875 and included this statement: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Now I recognize that the NRA had already existed for about 4 years at the time of this Supreme Court decision, but is this when the NRA started their "new age" interpretation of the Second Amendment?

The One
Forum Addict
Posts: 203
Joined: Thu Oct 20, 2011 4:45 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby The One » Thu Mar 09, 2017 12:04 pm

To Gentle Man

Image

Roy
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6160
Joined: Sun Jul 17, 2005 11:31 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Roy » Thu Mar 09, 2017 2:58 pm

A gun in the hand, is better by far, than a cop on the phone.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 25152
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Mar 09, 2017 3:14 pm

You never know when you'll need to shoot someone on a city bus.

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:00 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:You never know when you'll need to shoot someone on a city bus.


Good point. If only people had known in advance that Salim Amara intended to drench the passengers on a Madison Metro bus with gasoline and light a match perhaps the outcome would have been different.

Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 25152
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all
Contact:

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Henry Vilas » Thu Mar 09, 2017 4:06 pm

Salim was a former student of mine. He exhibited extreme signs of schizophrenia after he left the school where I taught. And he still had the same rights to carry arms as you do. The NRA and Trump has made sure of that. So much for your "shall not infringe" absolutism.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Mar 09, 2017 6:56 pm

Gentle Man wrote:
Yes, I find infringements of a right that the highest law of the land says "shall not be infringed" to be at most inconvenient...
"... shall not be infringed" in reference to your service in a militia. You seem to think the 2nd amendment is 1/2 a sentence, so you start out under a false premise (lie) when you leave out the 1st 1/2 of the only sentence that is the 2nd amendment.

But naturally, even if you were in a militia at the time, your right to bear arms was infringed if you were deemed a danger to others. So it's another lie for you to claim or imply that "... shall not be infringed" means they were writing a 'no holds barred' right, and threw out all common sense laws that would keep others safe.

Gentle Man wrote: ... Since you are one to insist on looking at the actual words of the 2nd Amendment time after time, kindly point out the references to slave patrols in it. If you can't find any, then cite the Supreme Courts opinions that have interpreted the 2nd Amendment as having a purpose related to slave patrols.
I cited the actual primary use of the miltias at the time, which as you know, was as slave patrols. So again, you flat out lie about this as well. By using your "logic" as a standard, then you'd have to explain why you'll be arrested for having certain kinds of arms, and not others, since the 2nd doesn't specify. You'd also have to explain why you can have anything other than the kinds of arms that were available at the time, since they could only be referring to the kinds of arms they were aware of. You'd also have to explain why you think you have the right to bear arms for personal self-defense. The 2nd says nothing about personal self-defense, but it does specify that the right to bear arms is to protect the security of the state.

Gentle Man wrote: Finally, since you putting such great weight-- in fact your entire argument-- on supposed comments about the intent of the Second Amendment why not consider these other comments about it's intent?
I put my weight on the notes of the people who wrote the 2nd amendment as they debated it on the house floor. Not on the opinions of others, like you have. Everyone has an opinion, but the only relevant questions are what was debated when the 2nd was written, and why was it included in the Bill of Rights. There's nothing in their notes or debates about personal self defense. It was all about keeping the militias. And it's written that way.

I also put my weight on the way every other part of the Constitution is interpreted. It's common sense to understand that there were regulations to arms even then, and that the right to bear arms was infringed for safety reasons.

There are always strong and/or varied opinions on any given issue, and strong opposing opinions on court rulings quite often. The question remains, why did the framers write the 2nd amendment and include it in the Bill of Rights. At least some of the Southern states, or slave states, wouldn't sign the Bill of Rights w/o a guarantee that they could keep their slave patrols. Perhaps all of them felt that way.

Yes, there were anti-slavery forces even then. It wasn't some new-fangled idea that only came up during the Civil War. So it was a genuine fear that the slaves would rebel and free themselves if not for the militias, which again, were primarily used to quell slave rebellions.

Gentle Man wrote: As for the judges only recently using the "NRA new-age interpretation" perhaps you would be enlightened by a reading of United States v. Cruikshank which dates from 1875 and included this statement: "The right there specified is that of "bearing arms for a lawful purpose." This is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress." Now I recognize that the NRA had already existed for about 4 years at the time of this Supreme Court decision, but is this when the NRA started their "new age" interpretation of the Second Amendment?
That's cherry picking, hey?

And as a final note, as a few people here have also noted, the 2nd amendment doesn't make any sense when you read it as is. It looks like 2 seperate sentences juxtaposed together the way you interpret it, that seem confusing as a whole. But when you know why the 2nd was written, specifically to keep the militias together as they were of vital importance to States whose population consisted of 40% slaves, then it makes perfect sense.

And something else you'll have to explain: how you think that the founders had "divine" wisdom when they wrote the 2nd amendment if it means what you want it too, but were linguistic dumbasses at the same time for writing it the way they did, which is not in the way you interpret it.

“See, ... you got to keep repeating things over and over and over again for the truth to sink in, to kind of catapult the propaganda.”

Much of the Constitution was written as a resolution to the problems of the day. What would the framers say to the problem of gun violence in America today? What would they say about NRA $s controlling policy against the will of 90% of the people, and even the will of 3/4ths of NRA members? I think you know, and that's why you do the "NRA Shuffle" instead of taking an objective look at it.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Mar 09, 2017 9:27 pm

Gentle Man wrote:... the ridiculous anti-gun brainwashing kids get in schools and other places.
I don't think that kids need to be taught to understand that being killed by a gun in the wrong hands isn't a good thing. They see what guns are doing to their families and friends, neighbors, and other members of the community. They see how self-righteous hardasses are allowed to murder kids and get away with it because of people like you who promote easy access to guns.

If you'd really like kids to think of guns as good, then you may want to focus your efforts on strong regulations, so bad people can't have guns easily, instead of pretending like this problem doesn't exist, and then attacking people who do not share your views.

Gentle Man wrote: It is suggested to children that guns are so inherently evil beasts that they may be kicked out of school for wearing a T-shirt that depicts a gun, or have a squirt gun, or chew their pop tart into the shape of a gun, or any other number of things that have happened in schools around the country. Kids notice a guy with a gun who is not a cop and see he is simply going about his day-to-day activities just like everyone else and nobody is alarmed or threatened or shot.
I think the idea is to not offer up guns as a "solution" to violence, expecially to kids who could often be reckless with them in a variety of ways.

On the other hand, you could be brought up to think guns are cool like I was as a rite of passage, and then observe the effects they have on society, and understand that it's not cool to love guns so much that you would ignore those effects and promote easy proliferation in contradiction of overwhelming empirical evidence like you do.

jonnygothispen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 6033
Joined: Wed Jun 25, 2008 3:53 pm
Location: location, location

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby jonnygothispen » Thu Mar 09, 2017 11:38 pm

Another one of your glaring contradictions, GEDman, is your claim that support of low-to-no regulations on guns is for the people. But when given empirical evidence that too many guns are in the wrong hands and innocent people are dying in growing #s because of it, you have almost always picked proliferation over the safety of the people. Sure, you pretend at times to take the safety side when there's really no other way out.

You've also said that the Bill of Rights is meant to protect the people from Government, but ironically, the position you take protects politicians (government) who take NRA $s, so they'll violate the safety and the will of the people. When you oppose common sense regulations that 90% of the people want (comprehensive background checks/training, etc,) you're really only protecting the profits of the gun and ammo manufacturers over the rights of the people. "Protecting the people" then is just coincidental to your love of guns. That's the impression your bullheadedness is giving.

Your "NRA shuffle" between what some states say and the Constitution is essentially a concession that you can't support what you think the 2nd amendment says on it's own merits. And again, when it comes to what the states say, or the Constitution, you only support them when they say what makes you feel good about guns. When a state says regulation is necessary for the safety of the people, you're against that state. When the Feds say regulation is necessary for the safety of the people, you're against the Feds. Maybe not every single time... When the Bill of Rights says those who are armed should be "well regulated," you change it to mean operating properly, or well-oiled, as you put it, as if mass deaths of innocent people because of low regulations/easy access is "operating properly." Maybe it's only your opinion that's actually "well-lubed?"

In other words, you're not really interested in having an honest debate. What you're into is promoting guns.

Madsci
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Madsci » Fri Mar 10, 2017 9:51 pm

I am so glad that I no longer live in Madison. Bus transportation was always my alternative to riding my bike, especially when the weather was rough.
I wonder if the alternatives to using the bus to commute will increase...

Gentle Man
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 999
Joined: Thu Apr 03, 2014 2:39 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Gentle Man » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:19 pm

Madsci wrote:I am so glad that I no longer live in Madison. Bus transportation was always my alternative to riding my bike, especially when the weather was rough.
I wonder if the alternatives to using the bus to commute will increase...


The City of Milwaukee's mayor and city council are as opposed to guns as much as Madison's mayor and city council. Guns have been allowed on Milwaukee buses since the concealed carry bill went into effect in 2011. Do you have any data to show it's been a problem on the Milwaukee buses?

But Milwaukee's attorneys read the law impartially, and did not try to rationalize or advise lawless behavior by the city. To have done so would indicate either a very poor understanding of a law that is so simple and clear that only a lawyer could pretend not to get it, or something worse.

Madsci
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1501
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 6:47 pm

Re: Weapons on Metro buses

Postby Madsci » Mon Mar 13, 2017 1:53 pm

Why would I have data about guns on Milwaukee buses? You are weird.


Return to “Local Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 4 guests