What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Post Reply
 
Thread Rating:
  • 0 Votes - 0 Average
  • 1
  • 2
  • 3
  • 4
  • 5
14-06-2017, 06:14 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Gawd...zilla, it is a right that all people have, but with each right we also have a responsibility.

Babies come with parents and if those parents are not willing to take responsibility for rearing, then the outcome could be poor.

The Republic was "given" to us, the People, with Rights, but unless we take it all seriously and use the Rights with Responsible thought and action, then the outcome could be poor.

As you might have noticed, some of the People have abdicated their Responsibilities while demanding their Rights and the Republic has stumbled during the past as recent as a century ago.

The Right to own firearms and carry them was such a "no-brainer" at the time that it was a battle to have this common sense Right included in the Bill of Rights.

The term "well-regulated" did mean in the days vernacular to be well outfitted in up-to-date weaponry.

"The Ox is slow, but the Earth is patient."
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Jeanne's post
14-06-2017, 06:35 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(14-06-2017 06:14 AM)Jeanne Wrote:  Gawd...zilla, it is a right that all people have, but with each right we also have a responsibility.

Babies come with parents and if those parents are not willing to take responsibility for rearing, then the outcome could be poor.

The Republic was "given" to us, the People, with Rights, but unless we take it all seriously and use the Rights with Responsible thought and action, then the outcome could be poor.

As you might have noticed, some of the People have abdicated their Responsibilities while demanding their Rights and the Republic has stumbled during the past as recent as a century ago.

The Right to own firearms and carry them was such a "no-brainer" at the time that it was a battle to have this common sense Right included in the Bill of Rights.

The term "well-regulated" did mean in the days vernacular to be well outfitted in up-to-date weaponry.
I imagine you believe all that. However people actually needed long guns back then, bears and wolves hadn't learned to fear humans like they do today. And people put game on the table, sometimes it was their only source of meat. They didn't have to go to Starbucks packing an AR-15, and we don't have to do that today.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 06:44 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
It's a bill of rights, not a bill of needs....


....

Don't pretend you know what I need.

You don't get to decide. I do.

.......................................

The difference between prayer and masturbation - is when a guy is through masturbating - he has something to show for his efforts.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 3 users Like onlinebiker's post
14-06-2017, 07:54 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 04:52 PM)TheBear Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 02:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  That is a non-sequitur. I have never claimed that it should say that.

Sorry for the confusion. My bad. What I was saying is that it would make no sense whatsoever, to me, if the 2nd clause was written that way.

Quote: But the way gun owners tend to interpret the 2nd amendment is to pretend that the first clause isn't even there -- i.e., that the amendment simply says "The right of the people to bear arms shall not be infringed."

LOL I agree. Some gun owners are ignorant of that clause. However, most gun owners, especially those who have concealed carry certifications, look at it in it's entirety.
,
Quote:My argument is not that "militia" and "people" are interchangeable, but that the first clause (the "militia" part) qualifies, or gives a reason for, the second clause.

The commas are there for a reason. Just like with the 1st amendment's 4 clauses, one clause isn't hinged on another, and they are separated by commas.

Quote:If the militia are irrelevant, why are they even mentioned?

No one is saying the militia clause is irrelevant. I'm just saying that the 2nd clause is separate and apart from the 1st clause, just like the different clauses in the 1st amendment. I mean, what does freedom of religion have to do with freedom of the press?

I think you're letting the commas mislead you. In the eighteenth century, people put commas all over the place where we wouldn't normally do so today (read anything by Hume, for example). They didn't have the same grammatical significance that they do now.

Aside from that, you can't compare the first and second amendments. The first amendment lists several separate but related rights. Each clause is independent. In the second amendment, the " militia" clause is not independent. If you split it off by itself and read it, it doesn't make sense -- it's ungrammatical. It only makes sense as a dependent clause, modifying the second one.

Having said that, I will back off a little and agree with what Chas said. By saying that the right to bear arms "shall not be infringed", the amendment implies that such a right already exists. You can't infringe something that isn't already there. So the amendment is not granting a right, it's saying that the government cannot take it away. However, that doesn't change my main point: the militia clause is providing a reason (maybe not the only reason, but the only one they felt the need to specifically mention in the amendment, and that must mean something) why the right shall not be infringed. It is not a separate independent statement like the ones in the first amendment. If you split it off like I suggested above, you will see that it's not a statement at all -- it's clearly meant to modify the statement after it.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 07:58 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 08:29 PM)Chas Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 04:39 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Perhaps, but I'm not as confident as you are that I know what the intentions of the founders were. It's funny that today's conservatives (in general -- I'm not singling you out) make a big deal out of going by what the Constitution says and not trying to "interpret" it -- yet they interpret the hell out of the 2nd amendment. What it says is that the need for a militia is the reason for the right to bear arms. We could argue for centuries about what it means.

No, it does not say that. It states one reason why an existing right should not be infringed.
That phrase was, in fact, a contentious issue at the Convention.

I've been browsing through The Federalist Papers, but I'm not finding much there about this issue. They say a lot about militias, but not much about the right to bear arms (at least I haven't found anything about that yet). Of course, these documents were written before the Constitution had been ratified, and before the Bill of Rights existed.

I can believe that they argued about the "militia" phrase (and most likely about the amendment in general) at the convention. I would actually like to know more about that argument and others. It sounds fascinating. Can you suggest any books or links with more information?
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 08:02 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
Check the Congressional record and the newspapers of the day for more contemporary discussion of the matter.
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 09:34 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(13-06-2017 03:52 PM)Gawdzilla Wrote:  
(13-06-2017 03:41 PM)Grasshopper Wrote:  Right. This is a complex issue, and very tersely stated in the amendment. I suspect that you would have to read supplementary documents like The Federalist Papers to get a more complete idea of their intentions. The document you quoted a few posts back helps, but that is a current document. I would be more trustful of documents dating from the same time period as the amendment.

However, it is certainly significant that they chose the need for an armed militia (and only that factor) as important enough to specify in the amendment itself.
Dig into that material, it's been years since I looked at it. The American State Papers may be of help, endlessly useful for my work.

It's also interesting to note that the Constitution's original aims have been circumvented by a group that stands to gain a profit at the expense of the US populace.

I'm confident in my opinion that the 2nd amendment was originally intended to protect an individual right because I have read much of what was written at the time about it. Tench Coxe is probably the most often used source in support of an individual right argument. In his numerous writings on the subject he made it quite clear that he believed the right to bear arms was not dependent on the militia. Quite the opposite really. He believed the militia was dependent on the right to bear arms. Knowledge of the correspondence between Coxe and Madison and by extension Hamilton and Jay through Madison is important to understand what Madison, Hamilton and Jay wrote in the Federalists Papers.

All of the legal scholarship written prior to the 20th century that addresses an individual versus states rights interpretation of the 2nd amendment that I am aware of supports an individual right. In 1898 legal scholar and Chief Justice of the Michigan Supreme Court summerized the last 100 plus years of thought on this issue when he wrote:

Quote:It may be supposed from the phraseology of this provision that the right to keep and bear arms was only guaranteed to the militia; but this would be an interpretation not warranted by the intent. The militia, as has been explained elsewhere, consists of those persons who, under the laws, are liable to the performance of military duty, and are officered and enrolled for service when called upon. . . . If the right were limited to those enrolled, the purpose of the guarantee might be defeated altogether by the action or the neglect to act of the government it was meant to hold in check. The meaning of the provision undoubtedly is, that the people, from whom the militia must be taken, shall have the right to keep and bear arms, and they need no permission or regulation of law for the purpose.

@ Grasshopper

Somewhere around the time of the post I quoted above you likened an individual right interpretation of the 2nd amendment to a conservation position. An individual right interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not a conservative position. It is a liberal one. A liberal interpretation of the US Constitution gives it broad meaning. Most liberals are perfectly fine with broad meaning to everything in the US Constitution except the 2nd Amendment. For some reason most liberals seem to think that one needs a very narrow (conservative) meaning.

Several recent liberal constitutional scholars support an individual right interpretation of the second amendment including Laurence H. Tribe, Akhil Reed Amar and Sanford Levinson. The Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago in support of an individual right. They are a respected liberal think tank and law firm "dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history."

Professor Tribe has always supported comprehensive gun control, but in the third addition of his legal treatise American Constitutional Law he endorses the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. When he published that work he stated, “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise.”

Save a life. Adopt a greyhound.

[Image: anigrey.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 4 users Like Popeye's Pappy's post
14-06-2017, 11:28 AM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(14-06-2017 09:34 AM)Popeyes Pappy Wrote:  @ Grasshopper

Somewhere around the time of the post I quoted above you likened an individual right interpretation of the 2nd amendment to a conservation position. An individual right interpretation of the 2nd amendment is not a conservative position. It is a liberal one. A liberal interpretation of the US Constitution gives it broad meaning. Most liberals are perfectly fine with broad meaning to everything in the US Constitution except the 2nd Amendment. For some reason most liberals seem to think that one needs a very narrow (conservative) meaning.

Several recent liberal constitutional scholars support an individual right interpretation of the second amendment including Laurence H. Tribe, Akhil Reed Amar and Sanford Levinson. The Constitutional Accountability Center filed an amicus brief in McDonald v. Chicago in support of an individual right. They are a respected liberal think tank and law firm "dedicated to fulfilling the progressive promise of our Constitution's text and history."

Professor Tribe has always supported comprehensive gun control, but in the third addition of his legal treatise American Constitutional Law he endorses the individual-right interpretation of the Second Amendment. When he published that work he stated, “My conclusion came as something of a surprise to me, and an unwelcome surprise.”

Liberal and conservative are somewhat ambiguous terms these days, but it seems to me that American conservatives (Republicans) tend to be in favor of a literal reading of the Constitution, with any "interpretation" geared toward discerning what the founders intended (rather than how to apply the Constitution in the modern world). American conservatives (Republicans) also tend to me more gung-ho about gun rights than American liberals (Democrats). That's all I really meant by the comment you refer to.

Aside from that, I think it's absolutely an individual right, and if I have ever implied otherwise, I need to work on my writing skills. I just think that, as stated in the 2nd amendment, that individual right is tied to the need for a militia. You can see the dependence going in either direction. You can't form an effective militia at all unless the people are armed, so in that sense, the militia depends on the right to bear arms. On the other hand, as I read the amendment, the reason for not infringing the right is the need for a militia, so in that sense, the right depends, not directly on the militia, but on the need for a militia.

I suspect there is a lot that is unspoken/implicit in this amendment, and it's probably impossible to know what all of that is without doing a lot of research (or actually living in that time, which obviously none of us have done). It sounds like you have done the research, so I will defer to you. I think it's very hard to discern the full intent of the founders just from what the amendment says.
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
14-06-2017, 12:15 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(14-06-2017 11:34 AM)Reducetarian Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 10:20 AM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  Nope. Just take a look around. The world is a fucked up place. ISIS. Gangs. Nut job mass shooters. Robbers. Has any politician figured this out? Does any government truly protect it's people? The world just seems hell bent on violence and there doesn't seem to be any hope. So I'll support the party that at least gives me a chance to not be a sitting duck to protect myself and my family. In this fucked up world, guns rights are all we have. It's sad it's come to that but it has.


Guess what Snowflake, we all live on the same planet, and most of the modern functional democracies do a pretty good job of protecting most of their people. And their citizens have learned to trust their institutions, but hold their politicians accountable. And these people find ways of resolving conflicts without resorting to "second amendment solutions". And most of us manage to deal with this "fucked up place" well enough, so no, that's not "all we have".


I take it back. You're not a snowflake
You're a wuss, a scaredy-cat, a chicken.
"Home of the brave?" Ha!!
More like home of the fucking terrified!
"Nothing to fear but fear itself?" Well, you're way past that point now.

Mind you, I don't blame you entirely for your paranoid/terrified state: your politicians and Faux news channels have done a brilliant job of manipulating you into a "stranger=danger" mindset, with everyone slightly different as the stranger, so that you can blame minorities and the poor for rising inequality, instead of the banksters and the 1%.

Only YOUR world (the USA) seems hell-bent on violence, because that's how it's being portrayed to you, FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

The idea is that if you keep 'em scared and confused (and divided!), they won't dare get ANGRY!

You. are. being. played.

Brought this over from another thread to keep it from devolving into another gun debate.

I have to disagree with you. I don't think it's cowardly to want to protect oneself or family with a firearm. If the terrorists or nut jobs or criminal have one, or even if they only have a knife, I don't want to be stuck throwing chairs and cups (like in Britain last week). I'm 6'2" and spent enough time in hand to hand combat training in the military and police fields to defend myself against an unarmed attacker if needed.

There were 67,000 female rape victims in 2012 in the U.S. (reported). Any wonder why my wife carries a gun?

2015 in Paris, terrorists managed to kill 130 people despite strict gun control and they had no way to protect themselves. In Britain the fuckers just used 12 inch knives and they had no way to protect themselves.

Snowflake? Hardly. If the time comes for me to use my gun, I won't be the one pissing myself begging for mercy. I have the training and the will to handle the situation. I will fight back. I refuse to be a victim. That's not cowardly, that is bravery. And there are millions just like me. We're known as republicans. Nice to meet you.

"Evil will always triumph over good, because good is dumb." - Lord Dark Helmet
[Image: 25397spaceballs.gif]
Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
[+] 1 user Likes Lord Dark Helmet's post
14-06-2017, 12:21 PM
RE: What Is Your Opinion Of Gunowners?
(14-06-2017 12:15 PM)Lord Dark Helmet Wrote:  
(14-06-2017 11:34 AM)Reducetarian Wrote:  Guess what Snowflake, we all live on the same planet, and most of the modern functional democracies do a pretty good job of protecting most of their people. And their citizens have learned to trust their institutions, but hold their politicians accountable. And these people find ways of resolving conflicts without resorting to "second amendment solutions". And most of us manage to deal with this "fucked up place" well enough, so no, that's not "all we have".


I take it back. You're not a snowflake
You're a wuss, a scaredy-cat, a chicken.
"Home of the brave?" Ha!!
More like home of the fucking terrified!
"Nothing to fear but fear itself?" Well, you're way past that point now.

Mind you, I don't blame you entirely for your paranoid/terrified state: your politicians and Faux news channels have done a brilliant job of manipulating you into a "stranger=danger" mindset, with everyone slightly different as the stranger, so that you can blame minorities and the poor for rising inequality, instead of the banksters and the 1%.

Only YOUR world (the USA) seems hell-bent on violence, because that's how it's being portrayed to you, FOR A VERY SPECIFIC REASON.

The idea is that if you keep 'em scared and confused (and divided!), they won't dare get ANGRY!

You. are. being. played.

Brought this over from another thread to keep it from devolving into another gun debate.

I have to disagree with you. I don't think it's cowardly to want to protect oneself or family with a firearm. If the terrorists or nut jobs or criminal have one, or even if they only have a knife, I don't want to be stuck throwing chairs and cups (like in Britain last week). I'm 6'2" and spent enough time in hand to hand combat training in the military and police fields to defend myself against an unarmed attacker if needed.

There were 67,000 female rape victims in 2012 in the U.S. (reported). Any wonder why my wife carries a gun?

2015 in Paris, terrorists managed to kill 130 people despite strict gun control and they had no way to protect themselves. In Britain the fuckers just used 12 inch knives and they had no way to protect themselves.

Snowflake? Hardly. If the time comes for me to use my gun, I won't be the one pissing myself begging for mercy. I have the training and the will to handle the situation. I will fight back. I refuse to be a victim. That's not cowardly, that is bravery. And there are millions just like me. We're known as republicans. Nice to meet you.

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/wonk...eople-die/
Visit this user's website Find all posts by this user
Like Post Quote this message in a reply
Post Reply
Forum Jump: