Because the item on top is effective against the personnel that use all of the ones on the below it. Only magical-thinkers equate the various inanimate objects.
No, that's not what I have been saying. (Voices In Your Head™ again.) My argument has been that a mere semi-automatic rifle is insufficient to fulfill the purpose for which the Second Amendment was created. Your graphic only supports my argument.
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
1) Evaluate Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as detailed in DC v Heller.
2) Evaluate the dichotomy of supporting increased funding of the defense department/homeland security juxtaposed with your paranoid fear of a possible future, tyrannical government.
I answered it. You didn't like it and then we got into Obsesso Land again. Since you seem to be so interested in the questions, why don't you answer them? Feel free to write as much as you want. I don't delete comments unless they are spam.
Or you can answer mine. That's great if you don't support increases in defense spending. Is this why? Do you think we should drastically cut defense spending as juris does?
And, really, Heller is the definitive word on guns as far as I'm concerned. While it clarifies that states banning guns is unconstitutional, it also says that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. I agree.
Or you can continue to act like someone with Alzeimer's which, I suppose, makes sense since you guys are the party that yells at empty chairs:)
You (and GD) want an honest discussion? Great. That's 50-50, then, give and take. I'm not interested in a discussion if it's only going to be critique of me.
N's contention that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets does not jibe with Heller.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search,... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Which also means that Mark's contention that using the First Amendment as a comparison to the Second IS NOT a false equivalence.
To counter Mark's argument that 'well regulated' refers to the government being able to enact regulations is this part:
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
To rebut Mark and N's insistence that talk of resisting tyranny is 'paranoid' we have these three quotes:
Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents
It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
And finally, for now, Mark's usage of Heller to argue that the 2nd is not an unlimited right as applied to banning certain arms - specifically 'semi-automatic guns that can fire 30 bullets before reloading':
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” ... The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” ...Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
Emphasis mine. In common use at the time seems to specifically eliminate from consideration the banning of the very same arms that are the most popular and most common currently.
Further, a case could be made that the effective banning of automatic weapons in the past has prevented the people from being able to make the free choice necessary to define those arms as 'in common usage'. I other words, can the prohibition of one particular, or one class of arms and the subsequent lack of common usage later be used as the lawful measure of whether that arm is in common usage and therefore not constitutionally protected? Would a prohibition enacted against internet usage in 1990 be a valid reason to find it a constitutionally allowed restriction on free speech today 'just because' the internet would then not be a common form of expression?
With a non-sequitur. "Musket" has nothing to do with PURPOSE. It's like saying "green" in response to someone asking why you married your wife. It's not an answer. Which is why I keep asking the question.
gd, thank you for taking the time to give a complete answer to Mark. Well done!
With a non-sequitur. "Musket" has nothing to do with PURPOSE
Uh...huh? Are you feeling OK in the head, NMN? I devoted an entire blog post to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's the one I linked above. This is why it's pointless to engage you. I can't tell if you are purposefully being an asshole or if you are that mentally gone.
gd, thank you for taking the time to give a complete answer to Mark. Well done!
And yet I am Brave Sir Robin...yeah, that makes sense...
N's contention that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets does not jibe with Heller.
I agree. It does not. Although, when NMN asked me the question, I did technically answer it correctly while also being flip and mildly obnoxious. Nikto's larger point, though, holds in the rest of Heller as he Scalia points out that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. In short, it does not apply to ALL arms. He specifically says that in the quotes I highlighted in the linked piece above.
That's why you can't simply look at your other long quote and say, "Well, that's it." You have to take that with what he said in the quotes I highlighted and interpret from there. Scalia himself said on Fox News that it is not unlimited and would not include "really horrible weapons."
His point really is that it's up to us. The assault weapons ban is constitutional. That's all I'm really arguing and I'm not necessarily supporting one or a ban on high capacity magazines. In fact, I think we can solve the problem of gun violence in much more effective ways than bans. I've discussed and listed many of them and will continue to do so. In all honestly, the problem is our culture, not the guns themselves.
Oh, and there were more questions you refused to answer:
Why are shall-issue concealed carry laws a better protection for Second Amendment rights than may-issue laws?
Or we could look at it from another direction. As a social studies teacher, you're supposed to know about history. Can you think of any examples from history where the government claimed the ability to qualify who got to own arms? (As opposed to someone disqualifying themself by committing a violent crime or through a institution level mental defect.) How did they turn out? And most especially, why did it turn out that way?
But let's get back to what you just said:
The assault weapons ban is constitutional.
Given the following…
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?
That's why you can't simply look at your other long quote and say, "Well, that's it." You have to take that with what he said in the quotes I highlighted and interpret from there. Scalia himself said on Fox News that it is not unlimited and would not include "really horrible weapons."
Yes, that is the point. You can't just take your one quote from Scalia and run with it without looking at the entire decision. Have you read the entire thing? Where do you get that 'really horrible weapons' would be defined as semi-automatic magazine fed rifles? Did you notice the part in the decision where Scalia alluded to the ban upon machine guns possibly being unconstitutional? How could that square with 'assault weapons' being 'really horrible'?
Have you read the entire thing? Where do you get that 'really horrible weapons' would be defined as semi-automatic magazine fed rifles? Did you notice the part in the decision where Scalia alluded to the ban upon machine guns possibly being unconstitutional? How could that square with 'assault weapons' being 'really horrible'?
I think you are missing Scalia's point in Heller and that's the problem. His overriding narrative throughout the decision is that it's up to us to decide the ceiling on guns. He's simply saying that handguns aren't it and it might be that some military weapons might not be it either. There comes a point when you have to draw the line on what weapons civilians should own if owning those weapons constitutes a public danger. Even Scalia himself admits that the 19th century courts saw the prohibition of concealed weapons as lawful. Now, it's allowed.
So, he's covering his bases on a lot of ways and saying that there are precedents for both and it's up to us (and future circumstances) what those parameters might be.
I want to back to something else you said.
Which also means that Mark's contention that using the First Amendment as a comparison to the Second IS NOT a false equivalence.
There's a very big difference between speech and weapons despite quips about the pen being mightier than the sword. But let's assume for a minute that there isn't any difference. A right is a right, right?:) Fine. Is freedom of speech an unlimited right?
15 comments:
Because the item on top is effective against the personnel that use all of the ones on the below it. Only magical-thinkers equate the various inanimate objects.
So what's YOUR answer? "You can't win, so just lay back and enjoy it"?
Oh, and BTW…
No, that's not what I have been saying. (Voices In Your Head™ again.) My argument has been that a mere semi-automatic rifle is insufficient to fulfill the purpose for which the Second Amendment was created. Your graphic only supports my argument.
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
2) Is the Constitution law?
1) What is the PURPOSE of the Second Amendment as stated by the men who put it in the Constitution? (This is an open book question. Feel free to look up the answer.)
2) Is the Constitution law?
http://markadelphia.blogspot.com/2013/01/both-to-change.html
1) Evaluate Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as detailed in DC v Heller.
2) Evaluate the dichotomy of supporting increased funding of the defense department/homeland security juxtaposed with your paranoid fear of a possible future, tyrannical government.
supporting increased funding of the defense department
I didn't make that claim, therefore I do not have to defend it. (See Voices In Your Head.)
Evaluate Scalia's interpretation of the 2nd Amendment as detailed in DC v Heller.
The purpose of the Second Amendment IS the evaluation. Besides, I asked you first.
I asked you first.
I answered it. You didn't like it and then we got into Obsesso Land again. Since you seem to be so interested in the questions, why don't you answer them? Feel free to write as much as you want. I don't delete comments unless they are spam.
Or you can answer mine. That's great if you don't support increases in defense spending. Is this why? Do you think we should drastically cut defense spending as juris does?
And, really, Heller is the definitive word on guns as far as I'm concerned. While it clarifies that states banning guns is unconstitutional, it also says that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. I agree.
Or you can continue to act like someone with Alzeimer's which, I suppose, makes sense since you guys are the party that yells at empty chairs:)
You (and GD) want an honest discussion? Great. That's 50-50, then, give and take. I'm not interested in a discussion if it's only going to be critique of me.
OK, from Scalia's Heller decision:
N's contention that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets does not jibe with Heller.
Some have made the argument, bordering on the frivolous, that only those arms in existence in the 18th century are protected by the Second Amendment . We do not interpret constitutional rights that way. Just as the First Amendment protects modern forms of communications, ... and the Fourth Amendment applies to modern forms of search,... the Second Amendment extends, prima facie,to all instruments that constitute bearable arms, even those that were not in existence at the time of the founding.
Which also means that Mark's contention that using the First Amendment as a comparison to the Second IS NOT a false equivalence.
To counter Mark's argument that 'well regulated' refers to the government being able to enact regulations is this part:
Finally, the adjective “well-regulated” implies nothing more than the imposition of proper discipline and training.
To rebut Mark and N's insistence that talk of resisting tyranny is 'paranoid' we have these three quotes:
Third, when the able-bodied men of a nation are trained in arms and organized, they are better able to resist tyranny.
That history showed that the way tyrants had eliminated a militia consisting of all the able-bodied men was not by banning the militia but simply by taking away the people’s arms, enabling a select militia or standing army to suppress political opponents
It was understood across the political spectrum that the right helped to secure the ideal of a citizen militia, which might be necessary to oppose an oppressive military force if the constitutional order broke down.
And finally, for now, Mark's usage of Heller to argue that the 2nd is not an unlimited right as applied to banning certain arms - specifically 'semi-automatic guns that can fire 30 bullets before reloading':
We think that Miller’s “ordinary military equipment” language must be read in tandem with what comes after: “[O]rdinarily when called for [militia] service [able-bodied] men were expected to appear bearing arms supplied by themselves and of the kind in common use at the time.” ... The traditional militia was formed from a pool of men bringing arms “in common use at the time” for lawful purposes like self-defense. “In the colonial and revolutionary war era, [small-arms] weapons used by militiamen and weapons used in defense of person and home were one and the same.” ...Indeed, that is precisely the way in which the Second Amendment ’s operative clause furthers the purpose announced in its preface. We therefore read Miller to say only that the Second Amendment does not protect those weapons not typically possessed by law-abiding citizens for lawful purposes, such as short-barreled shotguns.
Emphasis mine. In common use at the time seems to specifically eliminate from consideration the banning of the very same arms that are the most popular and most common currently.
Further, a case could be made that the effective banning of automatic weapons in the past has prevented the people from being able to make the free choice necessary to define those arms as 'in common usage'. I other words, can the prohibition of one particular, or one class of arms and the subsequent lack of common usage later be used as the lawful measure of whether that arm is in common usage and therefore not constitutionally protected? Would a prohibition enacted against internet usage in 1990 be a valid reason to find it a constitutionally allowed restriction on free speech today 'just because' the internet would then not be a common form of expression?
I answered it.
With a non-sequitur. "Musket" has nothing to do with PURPOSE. It's like saying "green" in response to someone asking why you married your wife. It's not an answer. Which is why I keep asking the question.
gd, thank you for taking the time to give a complete answer to Mark. Well done!
With a non-sequitur. "Musket" has nothing to do with PURPOSE
Uh...huh? Are you feeling OK in the head, NMN? I devoted an entire blog post to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's the one I linked above. This is why it's pointless to engage you. I can't tell if you are purposefully being an asshole or if you are that mentally gone.
gd, thank you for taking the time to give a complete answer to Mark. Well done!
And yet I am Brave Sir Robin...yeah, that makes sense...
N's contention that the 2nd Amendment only applies to muskets does not jibe with Heller.
I agree. It does not. Although, when NMN asked me the question, I did technically answer it correctly while also being flip and mildly obnoxious. Nikto's larger point, though, holds in the rest of Heller as he Scalia points out that the 2nd amendment is not unlimited. In short, it does not apply to ALL arms. He specifically says that in the quotes I highlighted in the linked piece above.
That's why you can't simply look at your other long quote and say, "Well, that's it." You have to take that with what he said in the quotes I highlighted and interpret from there. Scalia himself said on Fox News that it is not unlimited and would not include "really horrible weapons."
His point really is that it's up to us. The assault weapons ban is constitutional. That's all I'm really arguing and I'm not necessarily supporting one or a ban on high capacity magazines. In fact, I think we can solve the problem of gun violence in much more effective ways than bans. I've discussed and listed many of them and will continue to do so. In all honestly, the problem is our culture, not the guns themselves.
I devoted an entire blog post to the purpose of the 2nd amendment. It's the one I linked above.
And I responded to it, pointing out your errors and giving you the answer to my question.
Oh, and there were more questions you refused to answer:
Why are shall-issue concealed carry laws a better protection for Second Amendment rights than may-issue laws?
Or we could look at it from another direction. As a social studies teacher, you're supposed to know about history. Can you think of any examples from history where the government claimed the ability to qualify who got to own arms? (As opposed to someone disqualifying themself by committing a violent crime or through a institution level mental defect.) How did they turn out? And most especially, why did it turn out that way?
But let's get back to what you just said:
The assault weapons ban is constitutional.
Given the following…
This first part of the 2nd Amendment establishes the intention to repel invasion, suppress insurrection, and locally enforce the law.
and this:
10 USC § 311 - Militia: composition and classes
(a) The militia of the United States consists of all able-bodied males at least 17 years of age and, except as provided in section 313 of title 32, under 45 years of age who are, or who have made a declaration of intention to become, citizens of the United States and of female citizens of the United States who are members of the National Guard.
(b) The classes of the militia are—
(1) the organized militia, which consists of the National Guard and the Naval Militia; and
(2) the unorganized militia, which consists of the members of the militia who are not members of the National Guard or the Naval Militia.
… how is the militia supposed to "repel invasion, suppress insurrection" and prevent "representatives of the people betray[ing] their constituents" (Alexander Hamilton, Federalist Paper 28) if you have taken away the weapons they need to succeed at those purposes?
And, really, Heller is the definitive word on guns as far as I'm concerned.
Oh my that is funny. You claiming such devotion to an opinion from Scalia!
Heller isn't the end-all, be-all. McDonald covered incorporation of the 2nd.
That's why you can't simply look at your other long quote and say, "Well, that's it." You have to take that with what he said in the quotes I highlighted and interpret from there. Scalia himself said on Fox News that it is not unlimited and would not include "really horrible weapons."
Yes, that is the point. You can't just take your one quote from Scalia and run with it without looking at the entire decision. Have you read the entire thing? Where do you get that 'really horrible weapons' would be defined as semi-automatic magazine fed rifles? Did you notice the part in the decision where Scalia alluded to the ban upon machine guns possibly being unconstitutional? How could that square with 'assault weapons' being 'really horrible'?
Have you read the entire thing? Where do you get that 'really horrible weapons' would be defined as semi-automatic magazine fed rifles? Did you notice the part in the decision where Scalia alluded to the ban upon machine guns possibly being unconstitutional? How could that square with 'assault weapons' being 'really horrible'?
I think you are missing Scalia's point in Heller and that's the problem. His overriding narrative throughout the decision is that it's up to us to decide the ceiling on guns. He's simply saying that handguns aren't it and it might be that some military weapons might not be it either. There comes a point when you have to draw the line on what weapons civilians should own if owning those weapons constitutes a public danger. Even Scalia himself admits that the 19th century courts saw the prohibition of concealed weapons as lawful. Now, it's allowed.
So, he's covering his bases on a lot of ways and saying that there are precedents for both and it's up to us (and future circumstances) what those parameters might be.
I want to back to something else you said.
Which also means that Mark's contention that using the First Amendment as a comparison to the Second IS NOT a false equivalence.
There's a very big difference between speech and weapons despite quips about the pen being mightier than the sword. But let's assume for a minute that there isn't any difference. A right is a right, right?:) Fine. Is freedom of speech an unlimited right?
I think you are missing Scalia's point in Heller and that's the problem.
You really do have a reading comprehension problem.
Post a Comment