Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Bludgeon » Tue May 07, 2013 9:09 pm

snoqueen wrote:I agree about the one size fits all policy being unworkable, and I tried to say the same thing when I talked about how so many fissures in public opinion are being ignored: urban/rural, race differences, ethnic differences, sex differences, regional differences. We'll never settle this as long as we're pretending all that stuff is secondary. To imagine it is makes the urban viewpoint, the African American or Hispanic viewpoint, the women's viewpoint, and various regional viewpoints inferior to the viewpoint of the NRA and its allies. This is contrary to what I understand as the American fundamentals whether you're conservative or liberal or nothing.

^ Excellent post. Sorry to parse - quite the busy day. Also sorry to break into curse words earlier, in a mood today.

I lived in rural Wyoming and Montana as a kid and I don't think anybody who's shared a similar experience would ever venture to suggest that guns aren't a necessary part of life for people who live fifty miles from the closest police officer - or grocery store, for that matter.

At the same time, who's going to argue with Wyatt Earp, that in certain crowded semi-urban settings where cultural norms do not prevail, open carry is a little bit too much to ask for, considering the circumstances?

So to me, those are local issues.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby wack wack » Wed May 08, 2013 8:33 am

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.

Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3421
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Wed May 08, 2013 9:04 am

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.

On the other hand, the constitution also grants the courts the right to interpret laws and the constitution to the judiciary, so "shall not be infringed" isn't some amazing shield that let's D-man keep a gun at his belt no matter what. Clearly the courts have ruled that this and other constitutional rights that the government shall pass no laws infringing, actually can be infringed if it is in best interest of society. Hence felons can't own firearms, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and there is a limit to the level of firepower a private citzen can own.

What's incredibly funny though is that D-man and other gun rights activists assume that " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." grants any right to do it without the government tracking said data. If the 2nd doesn't require all citizen owned guns be used as part of the well regulated militia, it most certainly says nothing about a right to own a firearm and not have the government know about it.

wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
Posts: 3216
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm
Contact:

Re: Bill Maher calls it a police state?

Postby wack wack » Wed May 08, 2013 9:19 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.

On the other hand, the constitution also grants the courts the right to interpret laws and the constitution to the judiciary, so "shall not be infringed" isn't some amazing shield that let's D-man keep a gun at his belt no matter what. Clearly the courts have ruled that this and other constitutional rights that the government shall pass no laws infringing, actually can be infringed if it is in best interest of society. Hence felons can't own firearms, you can't yell fire in a crowded theater, and there is a limit to the level of firepower a private citzen can own.

What's incredibly funny though is that D-man and other gun rights activists assume that " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." grants any right to do it without the government tracking said data. If the 2nd doesn't require all citizen owned guns be used as part of the well regulated militia, it most certainly says nothing about a right to own a firearm and not have the government know about it.


I'm posting my response to this in the Gun Thread.


Return to “National Politics & Government”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: pjbogart, rabble, Yahoo [Bot] and 6 guests