The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue May 07, 2013 4:13 pm

Dangerousman wrote:[that's not cool. Not only is it not cool, it's dishonest. Got that?


but most importantly, it's not cool. Be cool people

Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 07, 2013 4:25 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:[that's not cool. Not only is it not cool, it's dishonest. Got that?


but most importantly, it's not cool. Be cool people


I would say "take it from da Fonz" but Henry Winkler is definitely not cool when it comes to our rights. And when I say "ours" I mean both yours and mine.

snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 13522
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby snoqueen » Tue May 07, 2013 4:35 pm

It's fine with me when someone changes a quote to "bla bla bla" or something else humorously made up, but somewhere between that and seriously-made-up shit there is a line. Supposedly people are reading the whole topic and recognize made-up-shit when they see it, but the Gun Thread has gotten so long it's pretty much tl;dr for 99% of everybody using the internet.

I do not intend to get into another 101 page discussion on "where is that line." Changing quotes is a minor way to piss people off, while on the other hand getting pissed off and complaining brings a deduction of 1 point per complaint. This is all small potatoes.

Making a genuinely valid, original comment would be worth a full 10 points but all possible valid points have already been made on the Gun Thread and now we're bringing up things like what did Janet Reno say in 1993, which is a major waste of the world's dwindling energy resources.

Carry on.

pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 7029
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby pjbogart » Tue May 07, 2013 5:18 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
DCB wrote:
Dangerousman wrote: A straw man argument involves misrepresenting the other person's argument in a way that makes it easily shot down. Tell us, how was your argument misrepresented by the posts to which you replied?

Loads of Democrats have made hundreds of public comments calling for total gun bans and confiscation. That is the ultimate goal for many Democrats,


and so on. I don't know which would be more pathetic: making a bullshit statement like that with nothing to back it up? or actually trying to back it up.


Hey, maybe you watch too much MSNBC or something, but if you are going to quote something I wrote, and then add below it some other person's comment to make it look like both statements are attributable to me, that's not cool. Not only is it not cool, it's dishonest. Got that?


You know what's dishonest? Dangerousman feigning outrage over DCB's post. Let's review. Leroy says some stupid shit about Democrats wanting to ban all guns, I call that argument a strawman, Dangerousman decides to lecture me on what a strawman is and DCB points out that I was correct in pointing out that others in the thread were using a strawman.

I certainly wasn't confused by the post. Perhaps you need to brush up on your reading comprehension.

So, Dangerousman, just how dangerous are you, anyway? Are you stockpiling weapons to refight the Civil War? Or do you disagree with the President of the NRA when he referred to the Civil War as the "War of Northern Aggression?"

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue May 07, 2013 8:23 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:[that's not cool. Not only is it not cool, it's dishonest. Got that?


but most importantly, it's not cool. Be cool people


I would say "take it from da Fonz" but Henry Winkler is definitely not cool when it comes to our rights. And when I say "ours" I mean both yours and mine.


I'm curious DM, what exactly would you describe those rights as being?

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3241
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Wed May 08, 2013 9:21 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
wack wack wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:Well, the phrase "shall not be infringed" seems very clear to me-- much more than how you asked your question.


"Shall not be infringed" is not the entire clause; your clarity comes from completely dismissing the qualifying first half, which is the real key to the original intent of the Second Amendment.

Don't let this reality inform you, though.


You are reading the first half "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state" as a qualifier when it is not stated as a qualifier, but rather one of the reasons why said right needs to exist. The guys who wrote the bill of rights and the constitution were pretty good a being specific when they wanted to be. Had they wanted to limit guns to the militia (i.e. every free adult male) and only for the purpose of communal defense, they could have written the 2nd Amendment in a much more specific manner.


As long as we can pick and choose which words to leave out, I'll take "not" for $1000, Alex. As far as I'm concerned, the real intent of the Founding Fathers was to state that the the right to firearms SHALL be infringed.

The Second Amendment is as much as a statement about militias and standing armies as it is about firearms. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that any of the Founding Fathers fetishized guns like Dman and the NRA do today, but there is plenty addressing concerns regarding standing armies.

Please explain how you come to understand this is only "one of the reasons why said right needs to exist." What are the others? Where are they enumerated? Please point me to where these are covered by the guys who are "pretty good a being specific when they wanted to be."

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed May 08, 2013 10:05 am

wack wack wrote:As long as we can pick and choose which words to leave out, I'll take "not" for $1000, Alex. As far as I'm concerned, the real intent of the Founding Fathers was to state that the the right to firearms SHALL be infringed.

The Second Amendment is as much as a statement about militias and standing armies as it is about firearms. There is nothing in the historical record to suggest that any of the Founding Fathers fetishized guns like Dman and the NRA do today, but there is plenty addressing concerns regarding standing armies.

Please explain how you come to understand this is only "one of the reasons why said right needs to exist." What are the others? Where are they enumerated? Please point me to where these are covered by the guys who are "pretty good a being specific when they wanted to be."


I'm not subtracting words at all though. They are there, and they mean exactly what they state: It's important to the security of the country that our Militia (again, all free adult males) be able to show up when called upon and have a gun with them when they do. The problem is, your interpretation requires adding meaning that isn't specifically stated: That the only reason citizens have guns is for their service in the militia. Not only is that not stated, but given that guns were actually a very nessesary tool for survival in the frontier areas of the nation, there is little reason to believe that the framers intended that at all.

The men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights had no problem being very specific in what they meant. Hell, read the 5th Amendment, then tell me the framers don't know how to say exactly what they mean. Your interpretation assumes that on the second right of citizens that they felt was important enough to enumerate, they decided to fudge it and hope we could just figure out what they meant.

As far as a list of reasons, I think you know such a thing doesn't exist within the constitution. A little research into british common law prior the American Revolution does provide several reasons why free men should have the right to bear arms. Since the framers of the Constitution were familiar with British common law (having been until recently British subjects) I feel fairly safe assuming that said reasons were part of their thinking (if not the ultimate reason) when framing the right to bear arms.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3241
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Wed May 08, 2013 10:36 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:I'm not subtracting words at all though. They are there, and they mean exactly what they state: It's important to the security of the country that our Militia (again, all free adult males) be able to show up when called upon and have a gun with them when they do. The problem is, your interpretation requires adding meaning that isn't specifically stated: That the only reason citizens have guns is for their service in the militia. Not only is that not stated, but given that guns were actually a very nessesary tool for survival in the frontier areas of the nation, there is little reason to believe that the framers intended that at all.

The men who wrote the Constitution and Bill of Rights had no problem being very specific in what they meant. Hell, read the 5th Amendment, then tell me the framers don't know how to say exactly what they mean. Your interpretation assumes that on the second right of citizens that they felt was important enough to enumerate, they decided to fudge it and hope we could just figure out what they meant.

As far as a list of reasons, I think you know such a thing doesn't exist within the constitution. A little research into british common law prior the American Revolution does provide several reasons why free men should have the right to bear arms. Since the framers of the Constitution were familiar with British common law (having been until recently British subjects) I feel fairly safe assuming that said reasons were part of their thinking (if not the ultimate reason) when framing the right to bear arms.


The Second Amendment may not say "only for militias," but it also does not say, "among other reasons." How am I incorrect in limiting my interpretation to only those words found, but you find legitimate meaning with only half the words? Your assertion that I'm making assumptions is pretty absurd. You MUST assume to reach any conclusion other than that which is specifically stated.

But thank you for underscoring my point: the Second Amendment is as much about militias and standing armies as it is about firearms. As you so clearly point out, there were other uses for firearms, and as you also clearly point out, the Founding Fathers could be incredibly specific when they wanted to be; therefore their lack of specificity regarding guns in the Second Amendment indicates that guns were not the entire point.

I asked where these other uses were enumerated in the historical record, not the Constitution. Interesting you point to British common law, then make assumptions. Interesting too that the Founding Fathers did not include those bits which you assume influenced them, despite their perceived penchant for specificity.

If the Second Amendment is wholly about guns, what did the Founding fathers hope to gain by not being specific? Were they being purposely vague, and if so, to what end?

Or is it more likely that there is no specificity because the real concern was to address drawing militias in response to the Quartering Acts and other parts of British Law which the colonists rejected?

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed May 08, 2013 11:28 am

wack wack wrote:The Second Amendment may not say "only for militias," but it also does not say, "among other reasons." How am I incorrect in limiting my interpretation to only those words found, but you find legitimate meaning with only half the words? Your assertion that I'm making assumptions is pretty absurd. You MUST assume to reach any conclusion other than that which is specifically stated.

But thank you for underscoring my point: the Second Amendment is as much about militias and standing armies as it is about firearms. As you so clearly point out, there were other uses for firearms, and as you also clearly point out, the Founding Fathers could be incredibly specific when they wanted to be; therefore their lack of specificity regarding guns in the Second Amendment indicates that guns were not the entire point.

I asked where these other uses were enumerated in the historical record, not the Constitution. Interesting you point to British common law, then make assumptions. Interesting too that the Founding Fathers did not include those bits which you assume influenced them, despite their perceived penchant for specificity.

If the Second Amendment is wholly about guns, what did the Founding fathers hope to gain by not being specific? Were they being purposely vague, and if so, to what end?

Or is it more likely that there is no specificity because the real concern was to address drawing militias in response to the Quartering Acts and other parts of British Law which the colonists rejected?


So you think in the middle of spelling out what the framers of the Bill of Rights thought were the most important limits to put on the government
in order to prevent misconstruction or abuse of its powers
the framers got sidetracked spelling out that the militia was nessesary and should be allowed to have guns? And did so because of the Quartering Act which the 2nd doesn't address at all and which is addressed in the 3rd?

Let me clarify, because I can see where you might have mis-interpreted what I meant. I don't think the 2nd is vauge at all in it's law. The second clearly states that the government cannont infringe on the right to own or bear arms. It also clearly states that well regulated militias are nessesary to the safety and well being of the nation. What it does not clearly state and which is where I think you are making a huge assumption is that the first statement has more of a connection than as a justification for the second statement. Perhaps it is the only reason that the framers wanted uninfrindged gun ownership, and my assumptions are wrong. That still doesn't change the language that they used which provides no qualifiers to the governments inability to infringe on our rights.

We are both making pretty big assumptions on activities that took place over 200 years ago. The difference is that I'm assuming what they were thinking, while you are making assumptions about what they meant. To be fair neither of us have any proof to back us up. The difference of course is if my assumptions are wrong, it doesn't change much at all either way, where as your assumptions would reverse the meaning not just as I or D-man have read it (which are not the same) but as the highest court in our land has interpreted it.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3241
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Wed May 08, 2013 11:47 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:I don't think the 2nd is vauge at all in it's law.


OK, I'm out. I appreciate all your thoughts but I can't get past this: the Second Amendment has been as interpreted, re-interpreted, misinterpreted and misrepresented historically and currently because it is not vague? No.

And the Quartering Acts ABSOLUTELY informed the development of the SECOND Amendment.

Peace.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3537
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed May 08, 2013 12:37 pm

wack wack wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:I don't think the 2nd is vauge at all in it's law.


OK, I'm out. I appreciate all your thoughts but I can't get past this: the Second Amendment has been as interpreted, re-interpreted, misinterpreted and misrepresented historically and currently because it is not vague? No.

And the Quartering Acts ABSOLUTELY informed the development of the SECOND Amendment.

Peace.


Would you consider the 1st to be vauge? It has also been been through the wringer as far as interpretation goes. Interpretations change can change for more reasons then vaugness. Do you think Citizen United happened due to vaugness in the First Amendment?

Your own interpretation of the Second isn't caused by any vaugness, but what you want it to mean. Likewise DMan's broader view of it's power is based on his political stance more than any confusion over it's meaning.

Finally I didn't say the Amendment wasn't vauge, I said the law wasn't vauge. The first half definitly clouds up the sentence, but it doesn't act as a modifier for the second half, the way that is written. Even if you could convince the Supreme Court that it did act as a qualifer to the right to bear arms, the fact remains, according to the Second Amendment our Constitution thinks that a well regulated militia is important, and for that reason citizen have a right to be armed.

Whether or not the Quartering ACt was considered in writing the Second amendment, the fact remains that the Second does nothing to address it while the Third addresses nothing else. One might interpret that to mean that rather than address it in the Second where they were already addressing the need for an armed militia and the right of citizens to keep arms, they broke it out into it's own amendment.

DCB
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3545
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby DCB » Wed May 08, 2013 12:54 pm

pjbogart wrote: Let's review. Leroy says some stupid shit about Democrats wanting to ban all guns, I call that argument a strawman, Dangerousman decides to lecture me on what a strawman is and DCB points out that I was correct in pointing out that others in the thread were using a strawman.

Well, actually it was BSH who made the stupid argument, and technically you called the stupid arguments 'dustbunny men'. Heh. But otherwise, correct.

And here is why I think those arguments are pathetic. Joe BIden wants to take your guns? Over 3 decades in the Senate, and did he take away all your precious guns? Nope.

You know who took the lead among Democrats to pass gun control legislation? Joe Fucking Manchin. The guy whose own campaign ad shows him firing a rifle at Obamacare. Suffice it to say the Democratic party embraces a wide range of views on the topic of emasculating gun fetishists.

And by the way, Sarah Brady? I don't doubt she would be happy to do some infringing on your alleged rights. But since we're being pedantic, I don't know if you can include her in the 'Dem' column. As I recall, her husband used to work for a prominent Republican. Until he got shot in the head.

Over here in the reality based community, we just want to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 2664
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Detritus » Wed May 08, 2013 3:15 pm

DCB wrote:Over here in the reality based community, we just want to keep guns out of the hands of crazy people.

So, then, D-Man is right to be concerned?

rabble
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 8808
Joined: Tue Jun 10, 2008 7:50 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby rabble » Thu May 09, 2013 10:40 am

3D-Printed Gun's Blueprints Downloaded 100,000 Times In Two Days (With Some Help From Kim Dotcom)
If gun control advocates hoped to prevent blueprints for the world’s first fully 3D-printable gun from spreading online, that horse has now left the barn about a hundred thousand times.


The only certainty is that if there is a way to do it, someone will do it. The time when we could control who owns a gun is almost past.

All we'll be able to do is filter it, the degree of filter depending on how much we want to spend.

Ned Flanders
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 14068
Joined: Wed Jun 13, 2001 2:48 pm
Contact:

Re: The gun thread

Postby Ned Flanders » Thu May 09, 2013 2:28 pm

Love to see the left go through such tortured machinations to "interpret" the 1st Amendment.


Return to “Headlines”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 8 guests