Heretic;1875590 wrote:Which is easy to do, since so many people only pay attention to news that supports their personal biases. Leftists can say silencers make guns completely silent; Trump can create a world where the only truth is what he says and anything else is fake news and, regardless, morons eat it up without even thinking to question.

It's really, really frustrating as someone who realizes both sides are playing their bases for fools. I often wonder how much easier life would be if I were one of the useful idiots and could crawl into my cozy echo chamber.

justincredible;1875588 wrote:They aren't stupid.

Some are.

[video=youtube;v7XXVLKWd3Q][/video]

justincredible;1875592 wrote:It's really, really frustrating as someone who realizes both sides are playing their bases for fools. I often wonder how much easier life would be if I were one of the useful idiots and could crawl into my cozy echo chamber.

Ask QQ or Izzy if their lives are easy, as they're this site's foremost examples of that.

majorspark;1875595 wrote:Some are.

[video=youtube;v7XXVLKWd3Q][/video]

Dear God. The stupid hurts.

Okay, you're right, some are ridiculously stupid apparently. But Hillary Clinton and Tim Kaine are not.

justincredible;1875597 wrote:Dear God. The stupid hurts.

I've seen this a few times. The most impressive thing is that he mostly keeps a straight face, and answers without a hint of laughter. Wish there was video of him immediately after leaving that hearing....

As for the Congressman, he must have done something really horrible to his staffers. He's basically Ron Burgundy.

gut;1875582 wrote:So now you're arguing the 2nd Amendment wasn't necessary at all? Then why specifically say "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED"? Why have the 2nd at all? You regulate the militia, so arming them is not an issue. There is absolutely no need for the phrase, or even the entire Amendment as you point out UNLESS it is specifically to grant the uninfringed right to own firearms. Otherwise, as part of the course of discharging duties to regulate the militia, you would simply codify into law the conditions and terms of gun ownership in the militia. It would hardly be an absolute right needing to be included in the Bill of Rights. No, the reason the Amendment and phrase is included is to SPECIFICALLY prevent the government from restricting or limiting your right to own firearms.

You clowns aren't going to run around as a disorganized militia, but you have the unambiguous and unimpeachable right to own guns. Again, look at this within the entire context of the Bill of Rights, which purpose is to guarantee individual rights and freedoms and LIMIT the power and reach of govt, especially a federal govt. That the purpose of the 2nd Amendment is solely to establish Federal govt control and arming of a militia is entirely inconsistent with the other 9.

Your precious precedent got it wrong, and was correctly overturned. A strict interpretation of the 2nd unambiguously concludes "SHALL NOT BE INFRINGED". A contextual reading would also conclude the 2nd is preserving the individual right to own and bear arms.

Gosh a ruddies what does the author of the Bill of Rights have to say.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])
An armed militia was seen as preferable to a standing army that was the not infringed statement. A large standing army was seen as the threat to freedom.
As to the Bill of Rights being solely about individual right. That is false on its face. The 10[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment is also about the powers “reserved to the states.” Also the Bill of Rights proposed by Congress included 12 Amendments. Two did not make it through the ratification process. One of those had to do with Congress having to stand for reelection before receiving a pay raise, it later became the 27[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment. The other amendment had to do with the population of Congressional districts.
The Miller decision was 8-0. All the justices voting, voted for it whether liberal or conservative. They saw its basis in fact. The decision was a bare 5-4. 5 reactionaries shoving that bit of NRA fanaticism done the throat of the American people.

isadore;1875607 wrote:Gosh a ruddies what does the author of the Bill of Rights have to say.
"The right of the people to keep and bear...arms shall not be infringed. A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the best and most natural defense of a free country...." (James Madison, I Annals of Congress 434 [June 8, 1789])

You should have led, and stopped, with the bolded.

But since you want to quote James Madison:
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.


Let's look at Madison's first draft - although this truly does not change the meaning, when the phrase comes first it makes things much clearer to the grammatically challenged:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Also, the 10th Amendment is not inconsistent with what I said - it, again, ensures individual liberty by explicitly stating power not granted explicitly to the Federal govt remains with the states and individuals.

And here's a less conservative/gun-nut take:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559


Truthfully, if one wants to make an argument about gun control, then the 2nd Amendment technically does not say anything about the states taking away your guns. Although one could argue the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, largely modeled on Virginia's, reflects an intent to also apply to states....a conclusion the SCOTUS has clearly come to time and again when state laws have violated those fundamental rights.

lol Isadore couldn't be more wrong


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

And technically, the guy you really should be looking at for intent is George Mason. Both Mason and Madison unequivocably opposed a Federal govt taking away arms from the citizens.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
  -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

• [h=3]James Madison, of Virginia:[/h]The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

iclfan2;1875629 wrote:lol Isadore couldn't be more wrong

Either they don't teach the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in grade school any more, or liberals are trying to re-write history.

Furthermore, if we want to look beyond the militia debate in this regard...."castle doctrine" can be traced to ancient Jewish and Roman law, and it's hardly a leap that the Founding Fathers concerned with fending off tyranny would not extend that same principle to a man's home.

gut;1875640 wrote:Either they don't teach the Constitution and the Bill of Rights in grade school any more, or liberals are trying to re-write history

I believe that you know it is the latter.



Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

gut;1875637 wrote:And technically, the guy you really should be looking at for intent is George Mason. Both Mason and Madison unequivocably opposed a Federal govt taking away arms from the citizens.

https://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559

• "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials."
  — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

• " ... to disarm the people - that was the best and most effectual way to enslave them."
  -- George Mason, 3 Elliot, Debates at 380

• James Madison, of Virginia:
  
  The Constitution preserves “the advantage of being armed which Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation. . . (where) the governments are afraid to trust the people with arms.” — The Federalist, No. 46

Gosh a ruddies, what is George Mason most significant contribution. Why the 1776 Virginia Declaration of Rights which was borrowed heavily from for our Bill of Rights. And what right did he want to guarantee for his fellow citizens.
"Section 13. That a well-regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, trained to arms, is the proper, natural, and safe defense of a free state; that standing armies, in time of peace, should be avoided as dangerous to liberty; and that in all cases the military should be under strict subordination to, and governed by, the civil power."
But No individual right to bear arms. Just not important for the freedom of the people but Militia obviously was as a protection against standing armies.

isadore;1875657 wrote: But No individual right to bear arms.

LOL, you're done. He absolutely believed that, and the two quotes I provided make it plainly clear - the individual right to bear arms is fundamental to the whole thing.

gut;1875662 wrote:LOL, you're done. He absolutely believed that, and the two quotes I provided make it plainly clear - the individual right to bear arms is fundamental to the whole thing.

When Mr. Mason had a chance to have his beliefs written directly into law in the Virginia Declaration of Right, a document which he authored, what did he include. Why Section 13 about the militia to protect the state against standing armies. And what does not show up in any of the 16 sections, the individual right to bear arms. Must not be that important.

gut;1875625 wrote:You should have led, and stopped, with the bolded.

But since you want to quote James Madison:
http://www.madisonbrigade.com/library_bor_2nd_amendment.htm

XIII. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defence of themselves and the state;

XVII. The people have a right to keep and bear arms for the common defence.


Let's look at Madison's first draft - although this truly does not change the meaning, when the phrase comes first it makes things much clearer to the grammatically challenged:
"The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Also, the 10th Amendment is not inconsistent with what I said - it, again, ensures individual liberty by explicitly stating power not granted explicitly to the Federal govt remains with the states and individuals.

And here's a less conservative/gun-nut take:
https://web.stanford.edu/group/progressive/cgi-bin/?p=559


Truthfully, if one wants to make an argument about gun control, then the 2nd Amendment technically does not say anything about the states taking away your guns. Although one could argue the inclusion of a Bill of Rights, largely modeled on Virginia's, reflects an intent to also apply to states....a conclusion the SCOTUS has clearly come to time and again when state laws have violated those fundamental rights.

1. Read the site. Those are not quotes from Madison.
2. Read the original wording, it shows that the right to bear arms is directly tied to them having guns to be part of a militia. And excluding religious pacifists from that requirement.
3. The 10[SUP]th[/SUP] Amendment “reserving’ powers to the states, the term is not an example of a grant of rights to the people but powers over people to government institutions. “The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.”
4. The Constitution has a lot to say about government control of the militia in Articles I and II and in the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment. In that amendment the right to bear arms was tied directly to the need for a militia. The Supreme Court accepted this view in 1939 in a unanimous judgement. The precedent held for 69 years until it was overturned in an unfounded 5-4 decision.

isadore;1875679 wrote:1. Read the site. Those are not quotes from Madison.

Yes they are. Read the Federalist Papers. We're done here.

gut;1875754 wrote:Yes they are. Read the Federalist Papers. We're done here.

No they are not.
Federalist 29 and 46 about the militia controlled by the government.
Miller decision got it right.

justincredible;1875588 wrote:They aren't stupid. They are absolutely playing on the ignorance of their base for political gain.

Not entirely true. Trump isn't playing ignorant, he's a legit dumb ass.

isadore;1875678 wrote:When Mr. Mason had a chance to have his beliefs written directly into law in the Virginia Declaration of Right, a document which he authored, what did he include. Why Section 13 about the militia to protect the state against standing armies. And what does not show up in any of the 16 sections, the individual right to bear arms. Must not be that important.

So utterly sophomoric from one who claims that others don't understand the Constitution.

First, let's dispose of 1939 Miller as it was NOT a substantive review of the 2nd amendment nor did it attempt to define the rights of that amendment.
The decision was for a specific case, and whether or not "they got it right" has no bearing on the substantive right of the populace to bear arms.

Examine the bolded part of the above quote....especially in the context of the fact that the major objection to the Bill of Rights came from those liberty loving founders who worried that the Bill of Rights itself could be misconstrued as "rights granted by the government" rather than rights that exist by our very nature as human beings. They worried that natural rights not specifically listed could be misinterpreted to mean that they are granted by the government.
They worried precisely about what is being postulated here.

If we are going to talk about "history" and "understanding" the Constitution, then you must thoroughly study its influences on the Founders and what they believed and what they were attempting to construct.
The Constitution is a product of the philosophies of the Enlightenment, the greatest explosion of absolute truth and empiricism in our history. (contrast that to the current relativism of truth...colored by perspective and emotions). These philosophies examined the human condition, human nature, natural law, the natural rights of man, and the nature of governments.... Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others. These are the "truths they held to be self evident", that our rights exist and come from God (or our very nature) and are NOT granted to us by our government.

In regards to the 2nd amendment, the founders could have found this inclusion to be an unnecessary altogether, as our right to self defense (of ourselves, our family and our property) exists in natural law, and in the natural rights we have as men. They chose to enumerate it specifically because it is the nature of government over time to acquire/usurp power from the people, and they feared (rightfully as history shows) that when the populace is disarmed, despotism and tyranny follow....no matter how benign that it may begin. It was of course, another check on what they feared their newly formed government might become.
More importantly, the amendment allows the people to grant the government to form a "well regulated militia" or an army because it is necessary for a free and secure state.....nonetheless, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.

Please. Don't talk to me about history, or about "understanding the Constitution" unless you are going to view it from a complete historical perspective without picking and parsing words and "progressive" misinterpretations.

Not to interrupt this dumb conversation, but here is a video of a guy using a bump stick and another guy who is a speed shooter. The bump stock was barely quicker and less accurate. They also both shot 10 rounds in under 1.5 seconds. With 11 minutes and not firing that quick, still could have shot over a thousand rounds at 100 rounds per minute. http://gun-hub.com/index.php/2017/10/07/worlds-fastest-shooter-vs-bump-fire/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

HitsRus;1875829 wrote:So utterly sophomoric from one who claims that others don't understand the Constitution.

First, let's dispose of 1939 Miller as it was NOT a substantive review of the 2nd amendment nor did it attempt to define the rights of that amendment.
The decision was for a specific case, and whether or not "they got it right" has no bearing on the substantive right of the populace to bear arms.

Examine the bolded part of the above quote....especially in the context of the fact that the major objection to the Bill of Rights came from those liberty loving founders who worried that the Bill of Rights itself could be misconstrued as "rights granted by the government" rather than rights that exist by our very nature as human beings. They worried that natural rights not specifically listed could be misinterpreted to mean that they are granted by the government.
They worried precisely about what is being postulated here.

If we are going to talk about "history" and "understanding" the Constitution, then you must thoroughly study its influences on the Founders and what they believed and what they were attempting to construct.
The Constitution is a product of the philosophies of the Enlightenment, the greatest explosion of absolute truth and empiricism in our history. (contrast that to the current relativism of truth...colored by perspective and emotions). These philosophies examined the human condition, human nature, natural law, the natural rights of man, and the nature of governments.... Hobbes, Locke, Rousseau and others. These are the "truths they held to be self evident", that our rights exist and come from God (or our very nature) and are NOT granted to us by our government.

In regards to the 2nd amendment, the founders could have found this inclusion to be an unnecessary altogether, as our right to self defense (of ourselves, our family and our property) exists in natural law, and in the natural rights we have as men. They chose to enumerate it specifically because it is the nature of government over time to acquire/usurp power from the people, and they feared (rightfully as history shows) that when the populace is disarmed, despotism and tyranny follow....no matter how benign that it may begin. It was of course, another check on what they feared their newly formed government might become.
More importantly, the amendment allows the people to grant the government to form a "well regulated militia" or an army because it is necessary for a free and secure state.....nonetheless, the rights of the people to keep and bear arms may not be infringed.

Please. Don't talk to me about history, or about "understanding the Constitution" unless you are going to view it from a complete historical perspective without picking and parsing words and "progressive" misinterpretations.

Gosh a ruddies, what pretentious bull.
From the precedent setting 8-0 United States v Miller correctly defined the meaning of the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment and it held sway for the next 69 years. The decision read in part.
“The Constitution, as originally adopted, granted to the Congress power --
"To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress."
With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces, the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.”
https://supreme.justia.com/cases/federal/us/307/174/case.html
To paraphrase, “There are more things in heaven and earth HitsRus than are dreamt of in your philosophy.”
There were other political philosophers and particular occurrences that molded the Founders. Philosophically the writings of a group of early eighteenth centuries English “independent whigs”, including Henry St. John, Thomas Gordon and John Trenchard. Their writing about the threats of oppressive, corrupt monarchial government to the rights the people had a great effect on the Founders. One of the greatest threats came from permanent standing armies. Trenchard’s History of Standing Armies circulated widely in the colonies.
The colonists experience with British military occupation in the period after the French and Indian War reflected the threats Trenchard described. They would lead Madison to push both the 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] and 3[SUP]rd[/SUP] Amendments. Even arch Federalist Alexander Hamilton would write, “I am a mortal enemy of standing armies, particularly in a time of peace.” And supported a federally controlled militia in Federalist 29. Madison made sure the militia under federal control. It was written into Articles I and II of the original Constitution and 2[SUP]nd[/SUP] Amendment of the Bill of Rights. As a Congressional leader he helped to pass the Militia Acts of 1792 which spelled out federal control of the militia with requirements on what guns and ammunition the militiamen would have. Jefferson and he as Presidents kept the US Army miniscule, relying on the Militia. It worked to Madison’s detriment in the War of 1812.

iclfan2;1875853 wrote:Not to interrupt this dumb conversation, but here is a video of a guy using a bump stick and another guy who is a speed shooter. The bump stock was barely quicker and less accurate. They also both shot 10 rounds in under 1.5 seconds. With 11 minutes and not firing that quick, still could have shot over a thousand rounds at 100 rounds per minute. http://gun-hub.com/index.php/2017/10/07/worlds-fastest-shooter-vs-bump-fire/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

I don't have one nor see any need for it. Pointing out that it doesn't help that much in this situation as everyone thinks it did.
If you believe that Americans shouldn't have the right to own firearms to protect themselves you are a dumbass.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

iclfan2;1875853 wrote:Not to interrupt this dumb conversation, but here is a video of a guy using a bump stick and another guy who is a speed shooter. The bump stock was barely quicker and less accurate. They also both shot 10 rounds in under 1.5 seconds. With 11 minutes and not firing that quick, still could have shot over a thousand rounds at 100 rounds per minute. http://gun-hub.com/index.php/2017/10/07/worlds-fastest-shooter-vs-bump-fire/


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

so your comparing what the "world's fastest shooter" vs bump stock to what Stephen Pollock, who despite all the guns he purchased was according to his brother with "not an avid gun guy at all," with no special military or other training in speed or accuracy.

That's why I used 100 shots per minute not 500. With reloading and practice that isn't far fetched at all. Do you just argue to argue without reading comprehension? And his brother didn't know he had 20 guns so what does he know?


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk