Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Guns don't kill threads; Ratz kill threads!
Post Reply
Coito ergo sum
Posts: 32040
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 2:03 pm
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Coito ergo sum » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:07 pm

Well, Seth, neither your position, nor the gun-banner position are correct under the current law. In many ways rights are dependent on statistical analysis and changing times, etc. The best example is the right to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. What is "reasonable" depends on ends as well as means, as well as the risks involved. If the risk, for example, is that a mad-criminal has a nuclear bomb that will destroy a city, is it "reasonable" for cops to break down doors and force searches to find it? Whereas the same kind of search for a guy with drugs would not be "reasonable?" I submit, yes, the risk to the public could make an otherwise unreasonable search reasonable. That's the basis for "exigent circumstances" exceptions -- in normal circumstances, unreasonable to enter a house without a warrant - however, if in hot pursuit of a guy carrying drugs, a cop can follow him into the house to prevent him from flushing the drugs.

Apply that kind of thinking to the 2d amendment, and we look at the language -- "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Great -- so, arguably here we're not talking about any weapon here - we're talking about "arms" (whatever an "arm" is, as distinct from weapons that are not "arms.") and we are talking about a "well regulated militia" -- so, the word "regulated" there seems to allow regulation of the arms. As long as that regulation does not effectively become an infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, oughtn't it not be allowed?

So -- I think that nothing is "absolute," although in some cases the line is clearer than in others.

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Rum » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:41 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:On this issue, you tend to scoff and mock, not discuss.
What else given the completely irrational stance of the gun lustres?

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Seth » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:46 pm

Rum wrote:Yes by all means! Your right to own guns is of course far more important than protecting children from them. Rights after all trump everything.
The problem with your argument is that children are not in more danger because I carry a gun, they are in less danger. They would be in substantially more danger if people like me were NOT armed. That happens to be a fact that puts paid to your argument.

Coito:

Go look up the contemporary definition of "arms" in 1790 and you'll find that it includes every kind and sort of weapon available, without restriction. The contemporary definition is no different:
arm
2 [ahrm]
noun
1. Usually, arms. weapons, especially firearms.
It's a synonym for "weapons," and it is not limited as to the types or styles of weapons, but expressly includes firearms, without limitation.

Then understand that the contemporary definition is not limited to the "arms" of 1790, that list grows with technology and use, just as the definition of "the press" expands to include electronic journalists and not just people with newsprint presses.

As to the militia clause, what's to be well regulated is the MILITIA, not the right of the people to keep and bear arms.

Thus, in regulating the Militia (as defined by the Founders in the Militia Act) its commanders may say "you must have this weapon and that weapon but you may not have this other weapon." But the "People" are not the "Militia." The Militia is a sub-set of the People, from whom Militia members are called to duty, where they may be "well regulated" and put under military command and discipline.

The People who are NOT members of the Militia however are not subject to "regulation" by military authority, and it is THEIR right ("The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.") to keep and bear arms that the 2nd Amendment protects, NOT the right of a "well regulated Militia" because membership in the Militia necessarily imposes "regulation" on it's members under common understandings of military ordering and command.

Thus, the Militia clause, while expounding on the need for an armed citizenry, does not limit the right exercised by the People NOT in active duty in the Militia to keep and bear whatever "arms" they so choose.

That it is an an individual and not a group Militia right was determined decisively by the Supreme Court in Heller.

Pertaining to your correct argument that no right is plenary, which is true, the government's ability to infringe upon or regulate any right is strictly limited and constrained by judicial precedent and societal usage. Thus, while the time, place and manner of keeping and bearing arms may be regulated in the public interest, the bedrock right to acquire, keep and bear those arms is much less susceptible to infringement because of the language of the 2nd Amendment. "The right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" is exceedingly clear and unambiguous.

Confusion occurs when hoplophobes fail to distinguish between "keeping and bearing" and "operating or discharging" said arms. There is much less constraint on the regulation of the right to USE arms (ie: operate, wield, discharge, or otherwise use for the purposes of effecting physical force against another) than there is on the right to KEEP AN BEAR them.

The distinction is not really all that hard to comprehend. I've "kept and borne" a semi-automatic handgun for more than a quarter century, in public, concealed. I've done the same with other arms, like knives, and I've openly carried many types of arms, from a Scottish two-handed broadsword to a machine gun from time to time. My right to do so is what's protected most strongly by the 2nd Amendment.

However, my right to put any such arms to use as arms (as opposed to tools, like using a hatchet to cut wood rather than splitting a skull) is closely regulated. There are tens of thousands of laws that detail exactly how, when and where I may make use of "arms" as weapons. And those laws are not much in question.

But hoplophobes and anti-gun zealots cannot, or more likely choose not to acknowledge this important distinction and they wrongly and with grave intellectual dishonesty and mal intent conflate the otherwise peaceable keeping and bearing of arms with the unlawful and harmful USE of arms, assuming and arguing that the one thing necessarily infers the other thing will take place.

This, of course, is juvenile nonsense of the highest order. In all my years of keeping and bearing arms on a daily basis, I've never once used one unlawfully. Therefore, my keeping and bearing of arms is fully protected by the 2nd Amendment under the legal maxim that a person exercising his fundamental rights harmlessly and peaceably cannot be prevented from doing so by the government without a real and substantial necessity to do so.

And arguing that some other person may misuse their firearm for criminal purposes doesn't cut the mustard when it comes to respecting MY right to peaceably keep and bear arms, because we don't operate on prior restraint in this country when it comes to the free exercise of fundamental rights.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Gallstones » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:49 pm

Obama’s Misfire on Gun Control: Unintended consequences: Many states are passing laws to loosen rules on guns.
Here are the ten busiest weeks for the NICS (National Instant Criminal Background Checks System) in its 15-year history:

12/03/2012 – 12/09/2012: 527,095 checks

12/17/2012 – 12/23/2012: 953,613 checks
01/14/2013 – 01/20/2013: 641,501 checks
02/11/2013 – 02/17/2013: 618,361 checks
01/07/2013 – 01/13/2013: 603,882 checks
12/10/2012 – 12/16/2012: 602,003 checks
02/04/2013 – 02/10/2013: 592,542 checks
02/25/2013 – 03/03/2013: 565,699 checks
02/18/2013 – 02/24/2013: 543,259 checks
01/21/2013 – 01/27/2013: 541,822 checks

As The Atlantic noted, “in the intervening 746 weeks since November 1998, the ten weeks with the most checks have all happened since the Newtown shooting.”
Since Obama took office in January of 2009, more than 66 million guns have been sold in the United States.

Much hay has been made of the reactionary new laws in Connecticut, Colorado, New York, and Maryland. New York’s in particular has been singled out as a perfect example of the follies of haste. But what of the 15 states that have loosened their rules?

This year, Alabama, Mississippi, Tennessee, Virginia, South Dakota, Kentucky, Texas, Idaho, Montana, Utah, North Dakota, Oklahoma, Michigan, Maine, and Arizona have all enacted bills that weaken gun restrictions. Arkansas, North Dakota, Tennessee, and Maine have expanded the list of places where citizens may keep and carry weapons; Virginia, Montana, Mississippi, Arkansas, and Maine have made concealed-carry permit records confidential or limited public access to them; and the legislatures in Oklahoma and Kansas have sent bills to the governor that would provide “automatic reciprocity for all out-of-state concealed weapon permits.”

In South Dakota, residents with a concealed-carry permit may now carry a pistol while riding a snowmobile; Kentucky has not only removed its six-month-residency requirement for a concealed-carry permit but also instructed state police that they have 30 — not 90 — days to approve applications; Idaho has banned local jurisdictions from refusing to recognize concealed-carry rights; Utah has made it illegal for the state and for local jurisdictions to compel concealed-carry holders to disclose that they are carrying; and Mississippi has clarified the meaning of “concealed,” so that one cannot be prosecuted if a concealed gun becomes temporarily and accidentally visible.

These moves are certainly in keeping with a general 20-year-old movement toward expanding gun rights at the state level. But the speed with which such bills made it through the political process should worry the gun-control movement. Twenty-five measures have been passed in the four months since Newtown.
Last edited by Gallstones on Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:51 pm, edited 1 time in total.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Rum
Absent Minded Processor
Posts: 37285
Joined: Wed Mar 11, 2009 9:25 pm
Location: South of the border..though not down Mexico way..
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Rum » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:51 pm

So much time and energy put into trying to justify what I think you really know is a wrongness about life.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Gallstones » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:53 pm

Rum wrote:I decline to discuss this issue further.

It is an opt out subforum. Buh bye.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Jason » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:54 pm

Gallstones wrote: No one knows me, I'm a concept, an idea of a thing.
Don't give me that BS. We've known each other for a good while and had a good personal relationship. I called you one of my truest friends.

This new Gallstones I don't know.

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Gallstones » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:56 pm

Rum wrote:Yes by all means! Your right to own guns is of course far more important than protecting children from them. Rights after all trump everything.
There is not a single child in this entire world who is in danger from any guns I may or may not own, not a single one who would have access to any that I may or may not have. Their mere existence, if they exist, is as irrelevant to the lives of every single child in this world as any thought rattling around in the head of a dead person.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Gallstones » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:57 pm

Făkünamę wrote:
Gallstones wrote: No one knows me, I'm a concept, an idea of a thing.
Don't give me that BS. We've known each other for a good while and had a good personal relationship. I called you one of my truest friends.

This new Gallstones I don't know.
There's a clue in there.







I'm not going to fight with you.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Gallstones » Tue Apr 30, 2013 9:58 pm

Rum wrote:So much time and energy put into trying to justify what I think you really know is a wrongness about life.

You lied.
Must not trust you, you're dishonest.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Gallstones
Supreme Absolute And Exclusive Ruler Of The World
Posts: 8888
Joined: Wed Feb 24, 2010 12:56 am
About me: A fleck on a flake on a speck.

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Gallstones » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:01 pm

Coito ergo sum wrote:Well, Seth, neither your position, nor the gun-banner position are correct under the current law. In many ways rights are dependent on statistical analysis and changing times, etc. The best example is the right to be free from "unreasonable" searches and seizures. What is "reasonable" depends on ends as well as means, as well as the risks involved. If the risk, for example, is that a mad-criminal has a nuclear bomb that will destroy a city, is it "reasonable" for cops to break down doors and force searches to find it? Whereas the same kind of search for a guy with drugs would not be "reasonable?" I submit, yes, the risk to the public could make an otherwise unreasonable search reasonable. That's the basis for "exigent circumstances" exceptions -- in normal circumstances, unreasonable to enter a house without a warrant - however, if in hot pursuit of a guy carrying drugs, a cop can follow him into the house to prevent him from flushing the drugs.

Apply that kind of thinking to the 2d amendment, and we look at the language -- "a well-regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." Great -- so, arguably here we're not talking about any weapon here - we're talking about "arms" (whatever an "arm" is, as distinct from weapons that are not "arms.") and we are talking about a "well regulated militia" -- so, the word "regulated" there seems to allow regulation of the arms. As long as that regulation does not effectively become an infringement of the right of the people to keep and bear arms, oughtn't it not be allowed?

So -- I think that nothing is "absolute," although in some cases the line is clearer than in others.

Go have a read of Washington DC v Heller. SCOTUS affirmed that militia is not a binding consequence. The individual has the Right to keep and bear for personal protection.
But here’s the thing about rights. They’re not actually supposed to be voted on. That’s why they’re called rights. ~Rachel Maddow August 2010

The Second Amendment forms a fourth branch of government (an armed citizenry) in case the government goes mad. ~Larry Nutter

User avatar
Collector1337
Posts: 1259
Joined: Thu Apr 04, 2013 10:24 am
About me: I am a satire of your stereotype about me.
Location: US Mother Fucking A
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Collector1337 » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:01 pm

Rum wrote:
Collector1337 wrote:
Rum wrote:Yes by all means! Your right to own guns is of course far more important than protecting children from them. Rights after all trump everything.
LOL! THE CHILDREN! JUST THINK OF THE CHILDREN!

How pathetic.

What's your solution? Ban all guns for "the children?"
Yes. Guns are very bad. They are designed to kill people. We should get rid of all of them. All of them. Like I means ALL.

Unless of course you are in favour of killing people. In which case I don't like you.
:funny: :funny:

Wow. You're a real dichotomous thinker, aren't you?

LOL. GUNS R BADD, MMK!

You're ignorance is mind blowing.

"In favor of killing people?" LOL WTF.

Pro-gun = "in favor of killing people"

Really?
"To learn who rules over you, simply find out who you are not allowed to criticize."

"None are more hopelessly enslaved than those who falsely believe they are free."

User avatar
Jason
Destroyer of words
Posts: 17782
Joined: Sat Apr 16, 2011 12:46 pm
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Jason » Tue Apr 30, 2013 10:13 pm

Gallstones wrote:
Făkünamę wrote:
Gallstones wrote: No one knows me, I'm a concept, an idea of a thing.
Don't give me that BS. We've known each other for a good while and had a good personal relationship. I called you one of my truest friends.

This new Gallstones I don't know.
There's a clue in there.







I'm not going to fight with you.
You cut ties with me a while back, I get it. I did something that caused serious offence, though I do not know what it was.

So what? You've reinvented yourself since? I now have no claims of knowing anything about you? I'm still concerned as an old friend and I don't want to fight with you either, in fact, I often defend you still. Regardless.. It is disconcerting to see this 'new' Gallstones in action. Something to consider or throw in the trash.

Seth
GrandMaster Zen Troll
Posts: 22077
Joined: Fri Jan 28, 2011 1:02 am
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by Seth » Tue Apr 30, 2013 11:03 pm

Rum wrote:Yes. Guns are very bad. They are designed to kill people. We should get rid of all of them. All of them. Like I means ALL.

Unless of course you are in favour of killing people. In which case I don't like you.
Sometimes, unfortunately, particular individuals need to be killed because they are doing something that is threatening someone else's life and the choice is to save the life of the malefactor or the victim. I prefer to save the life of the victim. If you, your wife, or your children were the victim I suspect you'd be not liking yourself.

Violence is never preferable, but it's sometimes an inevitable necessity.
"Seth is Grandmaster Zen Troll who trains his victims to troll themselves every time they think of him" Robert_S

"All that is required for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing." Edmund Burke

"Those who support denying anyone the right to keep and bear arms for personal defense are fully complicit in every crime that might have been prevented had the victim been effectively armed." Seth

© 2013/2014/2015/2016 Seth, all rights reserved. No reuse, republication, duplication, or derivative work is authorized.

User avatar
JimC
The sentimental bloke
Posts: 73014
Joined: Thu Feb 26, 2009 7:58 am
About me: To be serious about gin requires years of dedicated research.
Location: Melbourne, Australia
Contact:

Re: Obama is thoroughly pissed off over the senate decision

Post by JimC » Wed May 01, 2013 1:08 am

The issue is not "guns are bad". Few if any people arguing for some form of tighter restrictions on guns would be saying that...

I like hunting rifles. I'm glad that trained law enforcement and military personal have extremely efficient and lethal weapons at their disposal when they need them. I'm happy for people who want to get serious about target shooting with pistols at safe ranges, and enter competitions.

To me, one of the key issues about looking much more seriously at the mental stability of people who are prospective gun owners.

The other is putting some limitations on the types of weapons that most citizens are allowed to own (with possibly special licenses/exemptions for people who can justify them, i.e. private investigators etc.)

The limitations imposed in Oz suit me, and the vast majority of our people. Essentially, they mean virtually no legal private ownership of hand guns (with exceptions for pistol club members, who store them at clubrooms), or high powered semi-automatic rifles, particularly those with large magazines. Special exemptions can be granted in certain circumstances. Partly because of this, and a lack of a gun culture in the past, the number of hand guns (for example) in circulation is very low, and only the high-end criminals tend to obtain them, not street corner thugs or gang members. With all of this, there are plenty of bolt action rifles and shotguns around, and a healthy tradition of hunting, as well as plenty of opportunities for competitive shooting of all descriptions.

I would very much doubt that limitations of this nature could be easily achieved in the US. However, I am astounded that even minor restrictions that have been proposed are sunk by a powerful vested interest group, even with majority support by your people.
Nurse, where the fuck's my cardigan?
And my gin!

Post Reply

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 6 guests