Vegas and Automatic Weapons

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Scott it's historical fact that the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also wrote a rule saying that no guns were allowed on the University of Virginia campus. Therefore, the only conceivable conclusion, is that they never intended for the 2nd amendment to be absolute. They were literally the same guys.

No, that is not the only conclusion. Property rights were of paramount importance to Jefferson and Madison, as well as the other Founders. Ownership of property would include the right to not permit guns, or most anything else in any domicile or place of business. Ownership by a group, consortium, governing body of a private institution, could ban most anything from their physical space.

The minutes of the University Board of Visitors which contain the ban you refer to were not directly, or indirectly attributed to Jefferson or Madison. They did not, as you say, write the rules. They attended the meeting, and may well not have objected to the ban, but they certainly would not have said that the board could not make the ban. The ban included all sorts of things that could lead to "riotous" behavior including alcohol.

The ban did nothing to curb the absolute right to own guns. Nor the right to how many. Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you. But no freedom in the Bill of Rights allows you to trespass someone else's constitutional rights. Obviously, there is no constitutional right to bear arms or anything else, including yourself, into a private home whose owner forbids it. Again, freedom, as understood by the Founders, is only such when it does not destroy someone else' freedom. It must be mutual among all parties. Under such freedom, you cannot impose your property on someone else's property.


All of our freedoms have restrictions.

An expressed freedom cannot be restricted. Restriction denies freedom. Denied freedom is obviously not freedom. If there is something that needs to be restricted, it would not be included in the expressed freedom in the first place. If you later want to exclude a portion of freedom, it would be necessary to re-express what that freedom is, that is you would have to amend it. Otherwise, that freedom is uncertain, always open to "interpretation," so will be a tool to actually deny freedom in the name of freedom. Or in the name of something else.

Only rarely do the extremists shriek that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. Gun control always triggers those extremists remarks. Always.

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

"I don't find such an enumeration for gun control."

Then you'd be OK with someone buying a nuke?

[scottw]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms.

he explained this very clearly, I have no idea how you missed it

[Nebe]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

"I don't find such an enumeration for gun control."

Then you'd be OK with someone buying a nuke?

Jim.. the little loophole you are fixating on says nothing about the students not beating able to own weapons. They just can’t bring them to campus. They could store them at an outside residence, their family homestead or at a local armory, etc for safe keeping.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

The 2nd amendment says that right to keep and bear, shall not be infringed. The same guys who wrote that, drafted a rule that banned guns on campus. Therefore, they very clearly did not mean that the amendment was absolute. Because they themselves, passed a rule limiting the right to bear arms. If they were fine limiting the right to bear, by what logic would you assume they were not OK with limiting the right to "keep"?

I would argue that Jefferson would never link the right secured by the federal 2nd Amendment with the arms restriction enforced on the grounds of the University of Virginia.

Why? The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws.

The argument that University of Virginia's weapons ban means Jefferson and Madison felt weapon bans were agreeable with the 2nd Amendment, is only extending the author's constitutional ignorance onto Madison and Jefferson.

We see the same disingenuous argument used by gun control supporters in reference to concealed weapon bans. Those statements only utter half of the doctrine; they proclaim loudly:

BANS ON CONCEALED WEAPONS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

But they never state the simple, unremarkable reason; the 2nd Amendment was not enforceable on state or local law.

.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by ReelinRod

The argument that University of Virginia's weapons ban means Jefferson and Madison felt weapon bans were agreeable with the 2nd Amendment, is only extending the author's constitutional ignorance onto Madison and Jefferson.

We see the same disingenuous argument used by gun control supporters in reference to concealed weapon bans. Those statements only utter half of the doctrine; they proclaim loudly:

BANS ON CONCEALED WEAPONS WERE NEVER CONSIDERED TO BE IN CONFLICT WITH THE SECOND AMENDMENT!

[/I].

.

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

[spence]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

I don't think this is really that complicated. The 2nd Amendment was written in context of a militia...period. After the Civil War the NRA was founded not because of individual liberties but because Union generals were disgusted with poor marksmanship skills. It really wasn't until the 1960s/70s and Civil Rights movement that the NRA got political seeking to get attention for the Second Amendment as the rest of the Bill of Rights was being pushed by a more progressive agenda.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

I guess I'm not sure I follow you.

Some of the same guys who wrote the second amendment, also crafted the ban at the university. Which necessarily means, the founding fathers did not intend for the rights guaranteed by the second amendment, to be absolute. Some limitations were considered in keeping with the amendment. Same thing with all of the rights guaranteed by the first amendment, those rights are not without limit.

Jim, at the time that the university ban was crafted, it was understood that the second amendment restricted only the federal government. As ReelinRod said "The 2nd Amendment had no force upon state or local gun laws." Which "necessarily means," as you put it, that the Second Amendment was absolute vis a vis the federal government, not for the States. Therefor Jefferson and Madison would not have objected to the university ban, but they would have objected to a federal government ban. That is a huge difference. What is being called for by present day gun controllers are federal bans.

Since Madison's and Jefferson's time, the federal government has snuck its foot into state territory and is now having some say in the matter. That's why I avoided the States Rights issue and explained the matter in terms of Constitutional congruity. But I see now, as is your wont to do, when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

You sound very extreme with your "never", "only", "always", and "all". You also seem to be shrieking. You're also not making a lot of sense. What is it with the rarely shrieking that restrictions are necessarily unconstitutional. The Constitution is inherently loaded with restrictions. The enumerated powers of the federal government restricts it from everything (the vast residuum of rights left to the people that Madison spoke of) except the rights expressly given to it. The Bill of Rights further sets in stone some specifically expressed restrictions on the government. The vast restrictions on government are necessarily constitutional, not unconstitutional.

The restrictions on the people can be imposed by the federal government if it is within the scope of its enumerated powers. I don't find such an enumeration for gun control.

Of course, there are mass shootings, and garden variety criminal shootings, and suicides, and family squabbles, and accidents. And those hurt the psyche of the population. And even though there is no enumeration that empowers the federal government to attend to the emotional disturbance of the people, it is deemed to be, by the emotionally stricken shriekers, the only venue that can prevent or make smaller such disturbance. As well, it is the go to authority, in spite of no empowering enumeration, to ameliorate hunger, poverty, gender dysfunction, physical health, mental health, education, employment, all commerce in every facet of it . . . well . . . just about anything it puts its mind to.

Why on earth do we bother having all these other levels of government, and religious, charitable, and private, associations, and community organizations, and educational institutions as well as private think tanks and philosophical societies trying to tend to human problems?

The federal government could pretty well fix everything.

"Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you"

Not on a college campus, he didn't. Therefore, he was OK with certain restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, in the interest of broader public safety.

Jeez...

[Slipknot]

Never listened to Pat Robertson in my life so assume what you want , as long as there is a constitution, it is your right to do that, it doesn't make your opinion right, just different than mine. We can have a real conversation about it some day Chris.
Who is John Birch?
You don't have to answer because I don't really care.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[Sea Dangles]

Originally Posted by Slipknot

Never listened to Pat Robertson in my life so assume what you want , as long as there is a constitution, it is your right to do that, it doesn't make your opinion right, just different than mine. We can have a real conversation about it some day Chris.
Who is John Birch?
You don't have to answer because I don't really care.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Just giving examples of folks who share your values Bruce. Educate yourself and become enlightened by doing a search. Surely if a Rand Paul has your attention then you owe it to yourself to become familiar with like minded groups.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[PaulS]

Anyone want to comment on anyone else's height?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"Jefferson owned many guns. And he recommended carrying a gun with you"

Not on a college campus, he didn't. Therefore, he was OK with certain restrictions on the right to keep and bear arms, in the interest of broader public safety.

Jeez...

I answered this in post #208 of this thread. Constitutional law cannot conflict with its purpose. Personal, private property rights are understood to be protected from encroachment by other laws unless such encroachment is specifically granted in the constitution. People have the right to restrict guns being carried on their property. The right to bear arms, or anything else, including yourself, on someone else's property can be restricted by the owner. This can be said about speech, religion, or other rights in The Bill of Rights. Your example does not imply some vague, unspecified right of government to restrict the right to bear arms.

I might also add that broader public safety was constitutionally meant to be a local and state issue, not a federal one.

And the federal government already has accomplished unlimited power for itself by expanding its scope beyond its enumerated limitations (as in the example in post 188 which responded to your questioning how expanding laws could make bad law). Broadening its scope of power outside of its enumerated powers, as in giving it the ability to regulate the country's public safety, would certainly give it even more of what little power is left for it to take. And, given that its established enumerated power is already considered limitless, imagine what regulatory claims it can have on all facets of society if it can add to that the ability to find a safety issue concerning any constitutional right.

Your method of using various peripheral laws, especially those that are mostly state issues, as examples which can be used as precedents for similar federal expansion of its other powers or to give it powers it doesn't already have, can eventually make the Constitution irrelevant. It is actually a Progressive model which pretty much does that.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Really?

Freedom of speech - can't threaten someone, can't yell "fire" in a theater, can't possess or create kiddie porn.

This yelling "fire" in a crowded theater thing was a bit of a weak example by Justice Holmes. It is more of a property right thing than a First Amendment issue. You don't have a free speech right to yell anything in a theater, whether it's crowded or not. The owner of the theater can restrict yelling or can allow it.

However Holmes' actual wording was "falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater". Falsley shouting anything dangerous and false, Holmes concluded, is not protected free speech. Shouting something false but not dangerous is protected speech in general but, again, the owner of the theater can ban shouting of any kind in his theater. Holmes' statement might be construed to be an infringement of speech, except it really is not a speech issue as much as it is a freedom issue. That is, freedom has to be mutual. All parties must respect each other's freedom. Directly and intentionally risking the life of someone hearing you, against his will, is not an act of freedom but of license. It is not free speech, but dangerously coercive speech.

And kiddie porn depicting actual children would be infringing their rights. The other kinds, the government may have overstepped.

Freedom of religion - no human sacrifices, no mutilating women's genitalia

The Declaration of Independence is considered to be the reason for the Constitution. The Constitution is considered to be the political/governmental fulfillment of the Declaration's goal. So the Declaration is considered a legal reference. In so much as human sacrifice denies the Declaration's unalienable right to life, religion may freely practice its many other rituals, but, as with most anything else, it cannot kill you. This is not merely a restriction of religion and meant to impede freedom of religion, it is a restriction of most human actions and endeavors which deny unalienable, protected rights. I suppose, the same could be said about the mutilation thing, except if it is consented to (and the consenter is not a minor or one who does not yet have the rational capacity to oppose the mutilation) I would think it would be the right of the consenter to have it.

2nd amendment - all kinds of things you can't buy

Again, you want to expand the federal government's ability to infringe the expressed rights in the bill of rights because of powers it may have regarding non expressed rights or government rights that actually fall within some of its constitutionally enumerated powers. If government can do that, what can it not do? You would make a soundly Progressive Judge. Interpret to satisfy your notion of social justice, or to decide by emotion rather than law.

We agree that what happened is horrible, and we both hope it never happens again. we can leave it at that.

That's nice . . . but leaving it at that . . . and all the rest above that, leaves the Constitution hanging in the balance.

[detbuch]

One final thing, Jim. you said "I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue."

I can fathom your position on this issue. But it seems absurd, to me. Being sympathetic to victims of mass shootings to the point of demanding some, yet undefined law to add to or replace those that have not prevented the tragedies with which you sympathise, yet not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths which vastly outnumber semi-automatic gun deaths just because more are killed at once with the latter.

It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time.

And it seems illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well. It has even been stated by leftists that that's the goal. And that every gun control restriction that can be imposed on the law-abiding gun owners is one step further toward the goal. And that the immediate and vociferous calls for more control after every mass shooting is meant to ultimately create an emotional environment in which the majority of the people will finally give in to the leftists ultimate demands.

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Just giving examples of folks who share your values Bruce. Educate yourself and become enlightened by doing a search. Surely if a Rand Paul has your attention then you owe it to yourself to become familiar with like minded groups.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

An awful lot of people share those views: we are taxed too much, the Government is too big, more people need to work harder for their share. When did those become radical ideas? How dare someone try to prevent the Socialist Organization to Protect the Brotherhood of the Workers Party Unite you Running Lacky Dogs.

Pulling Robertson and JBS is a bit of a stretch.

Originally Posted by PaulS

Anyone want to comment on anyone else's height?
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

Nope but IQ is fair game

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

One final thing, Jim. you said "I feel like I'm talking to people who are trying to defend slavery. That's how hard it is for me to believe that otherwise rational and logical people, can be so...I don't know... extremist? thoughtless? Unsympathetic to the victims? I have very close friends who agree with you and detbuch, these are guys of high intelligence and very solid moral character. I just can't fathom their position on this issue."

I can fathom your position on this issue. But it seems absurd, to me. Being sympathetic to victims of mass shootings to the point of demanding some, yet undefined law to add to or replace those that have not prevented the tragedies with which you sympathise, yet not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths which vastly outnumber semi-automatic gun deaths just because more are killed at once with the latter.

It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time.

And it seems illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well. It has even been stated by leftists that that's the goal. And that every gun control restriction that can be imposed on the law-abiding gun owners is one step further toward the goal. And that the immediate and vociferous calls for more control after every mass shooting is meant to ultimately create an emotional environment in which the majority of the people will finally give in to the leftists ultimate demands.

"not demanding more laws that are supposed to diminish hand gun deaths "

Of course I recognize that many more Americans are killed in garden-variety gun crime, where handguns are used. I am a huge advocate of discussing any and all policies which might serve to help this plague. But this is a very different problem than the rare (not rare enough) mass shootings. I for one, think it's possible to want to talk about solutions for mass shootings, and to support policies that reduce 'normal' handgun crime, at the same time. It's not one or the other. Caring about one issue, does not preclude me from caring about the other.,

"It seems just a trifle cold-blooded to not get worked up to the point of demanding more gun control of handguns just because only one or two are killed at a time."

Again, wanting to make it harder for mass shootings to occur, doesn't mean I'm not concerned (even more concerned) about handgun crime. We can walk and chew gum at the same time.

"illogical to me that you would not think that the end game is to ban hand guns as well."

Maybe that's some people's end game, but I don't think it's many people's end game. The other extreme, is that there are zero restrictions, in which case you'd be more comfortable if George Soros could buy a nuke on Amazon.

OK. So here are your arguments (not just you arguments, but what everyone on your side, is saying) against any proposals that are designed to make it harder to carry out mass shootings:

(1) I need my bump stocks and high capacity magazines in case the US military wages war against me (because that will allow me to stand up to Delta Force soldiers and Seal Team 6)

(2) if we ban things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines, that's not a 100% guarantee that there will be zero mass shootings in the future, so unless the law is 100% perfect, it's not worth pursuing. Because unless you can save all lives, saving "some" lives is not a worthy goal.

(3) if you take away things like bump stocks and magazines, we are irrevocably down the slippery slope whereby the feds will take my handgun and put me in a concentration camp. It's not possible to ban some things, without going to the extreme of banning everything. Moderation is not possible.

(4) it's inappropriate to try and prevent mass shootings, because there are bigger problems in the world right now, and talking about addressing mass shootings, necessarily means that you don't care about people who die in other ways.

I was talking about this issue with some conservative friends of mine last night, all of them regurgitating slight variations of one of the above arguments. There is no talking to my friends on this subject, they just put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen. It's like talking to Sandra Fluke about abortion.

[Sea Dangles]

Robertson is the author of New World Order. A conspiracy on par with Roswell. Tin foilers unite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[JohnR]

Originally Posted by Sea Dangles

Robertson is the author of New World Order. A conspiracy on par with Roswell. Tin foilers unite.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

And it has been quoted and stamped on by many others before, after, and unrelated to that crank Robertson

[Slipknot]

Jim quote = "You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.



detbuch quote = You colorfully fleshed out what I said. Thank you. But your kooky characterization is beside the point. The point of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution as a whole) is to dissuade the federal government from ever getting to that position. And if it ever arrived the war would not be as simple as you portray it. There would be those in the military who would prefer to launch hellfire missiles in the other direction. There would be those who would be willing to disperse weapons to as many civilians as was possible. If the majority of people were armed, and willing to fight, it would be difficult for the military remaining on the tyrannical side to defeat them. And there would not be enough hellfire missiles and fighter planes, etc. to wipe out a determined populace. That is the intention of the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

But if the people are not armed. And if enough of them are dependent on the government, and have been conditioned by media and schools, then, like the British with the Tories, the patriots would have a difficult time, no doubt. We are probably at such a point now where there is not enough conviction, or even belief, in constitutional principles to fight for them. And the dependence on government has gotten so large that numbers are in its favor. So the Second Amendment, what is left of it, is just one piece of resistance. The battle now is for peacefully, democratically, retaining what is left of the founding freedoms and to restore them before we quietly allow the fundamental transformation to become the law (indeterminate as it will be) of the land.

That is a conversation some, many, are not willing, interested in, or capable of having.



-----------------------------

Jim, they are picking away little by little until they reach their goal, can't you see that? I say there are enough laws already, the tyranny in this state I live in is appalling, it is telling that they can get a law passed thru the house in a week when it is a panic reactionary law about guns, yet they waffle on any number of bills that would help as a positive impact if they just looked at the real problem.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT;1129750OK. [B

So here are your arguments (not just you arguments, but what everyone on your side, is saying) against any proposals that are designed to make it harder to carry out mass shootings:

(1) I need my bump stocks and high capacity magazines in case the US military wages war against me (because that will allow me to stand up to Delta Force soldiers and Seal Team 6)
[/B]
No, I don't think the military, at this time, would war against me. At this time, I believe, or maybe foolishly hope, that our military commanders know that the federal military should not be used against U.S. citizens, especially on U.S. soil. It has been postulated that a President could order U.S. military strikes on US soil only in extraordinary circumstances. Citizens disagreeing with an administration is not an extraordinary circumstance. At least, not at this time.

(2) if we ban things like bump stocks and high capacity magazines, that's not a 100% guarantee that there will be zero mass shootings in the future, so unless the law is 100% perfect, it's not worth pursuing. Because unless you can save all lives, saving "some" lives is not a worthy goal.

No, it is not about numbers for me. It's about freedom. Those who destroy others freedom are the enemy. They are not free nor believe or support freedom. They depend on the victimization of others.

(3) if you take away things like bump stocks and magazines, we are irrevocably down the slippery slope whereby the feds will take my handgun and put me in a concentration camp. It's not possible to ban some things, without going to the extreme of banning everything. Moderation is not possible.

Moderation is a fine thing. It is especially good when applied to personal tendencies. It is not so fine in applying law. Law is definitive. Moderating what is defined blurs the delineation and leads to its dissolution. "Interpreting" law in moderate, fuzzy, indeterminate ways, is a sure way to use it as a means to achieve the opposite of what the law was meant to enforce. Or to make it a tool for whatever the interpreter prefers.

And there can be no end to moderation except extinction. What one has moderated can be further moderated, until it no longer exists. That is what can happen to law when it is moderated.

Laws can be amended, or removed, by consent of the governed, in a free society. Such changes must be defined.

(4) it's inappropriate to try and prevent mass shootings, because there are bigger problems in the world right now, and talking about addressing mass shootings, necessarily means that you don't care about people who die in other ways.

Never said any of that. Free speech, which I hope does not get moderated out of existence, is a wonderful, and historically rare, gift.

I was talking about this issue with some conservative friends of mine last night, all of them regurgitating slight variations of one of the above arguments. There is no talking to my friends on this subject, they just put their fingers in their ears and refuse to listen. It's like talking to Sandra Fluke about abortion.

I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events, and a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers. Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons.

You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. The "need" argument should not be used in order to restrict freedom. Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. And to further your arguments of need, utility, and danger, you, and "your side," bring in notions of buying nuclear weapons, or tanks, or other behemoth weapons . . . just in case, I guess, that could actually happen. Do you know of anyone who "needs" or even wants such things? Or how it is even possible to legally buy them? Do you "need" moderation of law so badly that you use such examples?

Even it were possible to buy ultra destructive weapons in times of peace, what about another possibility. You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) But if it's possible for common folks in a modern democracy to buy weapons of mass destruction and then use them to kill huge populations, presumably for fun, or madness, or power, why is it not possible for a modern, democratic government, which can interpret and moderate existing law into means of restricting freedom, to also use its weapons to consolidate power in order to totally mandate what freedom is or isn't. If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms for what you consider a noble purpose, how do you restrict a government from using its power, for supposedly benevolent purposes, over the people whom it is supposed to serve?

You want a "reasonable" moderation of law in order to save some lives. What is a reasonable moderation of government power over ALL the people? Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable? What reasonable law gives the people such power to resist tyrannical force? Hand guns and limited magazines? What is the people's power if it is possible, by moderation of law, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves against government force?

Do you say that Democracy is the people's ultimate power? The power to vote? The last and most important resort? (They do vote in dictatorships.) Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule. If the mob is cultivated by the government, educationally, financially, morally, philosophically, politically--as Progressive ideology strives to do--and has persuaded the majority that the ruler's "reasonable" fairness, largesse, and control, is right and just, the power of the vote is sealed into the hands of government. The vote is bought and paid for by that government and sustained by its propaganda of mass justice. "Freedom" in that instance becomes a word, if still even used, to mean what that government says it means. And, what Progressives mean by that word is what they prescribe. And the freedoms they promise, in order to keep the people happy, are government provided "freedoms" FROM such things as want or emotional or physical suffering. They are not freedoms OF something individuals inherently possess . . . and which the government cannot abridge or deny. By "interpreting," thus changing, the word into meaning what Progressives want it to mean, freedom, no longer exists unless they say it does.

If such a state of affairs has already been achieved, it may well be too late for those who believe in the ultimate value of individual rights to resist a benevolent despotism. The only recourse is the inevitable financial collapse of such a society. Which could lead to another revolution to return to a classically liberal one, or for society to further collapse into recent forms of harsher tyranny, or even ancient ones that could last for thousands of years.

Isn't absolute adherence to the Constitution, not a moderate interpretation of it, a means to resist such a collapse?

And isn't the actual purpose of the Second Amendment one of the expressed points in the Constitution meant to give the people the power to resist tyranny? If the people cannot be trusted to support the actual freedom the Constitution gives them because some very few of them might use their freedom to kill others, then the Constitution should, indeed, be a useless relic.

But can they, on the whole, if they understand what freedom really is, be trusted not to misuse the power given to them for defense against tyranny? If they can, so informed, be trusted, what is the danger of the Second Amendment in its actual meaning and intent? Why must it be submitted to the process of moderation, which will become incessant until the Amendment is erased?

I think your other suggestion of returning to moral and other values would greatly limit the abuse of the Second Amendment, as well as the abuse of the Constitution as a whole. We should actually educate our citizens, beginning in childhood, on the real meaning of freedom, why it is necessary for the fulfillment of wonderful notions that are used to despair it such as fairness, equality, and justice. It would help to teach them the value of economics and how economy can work to reign in not only their personal financial destruction, but to reign in government spending into fiscal unsustainability. It would help to teach them in depth the reasoning of and final drafting of the Constitution, how and why it protects real freedom, and the dangers of interpreting it on personal emotions and notions of social justice. And much more teaching of various values that create a successful society of free individuals.

But, in my opinion, avoiding that path because it is deemed too difficult, or because those who teach don't believe any of it anyway, and instead keep tinkering on meanings of words, changing history, marginalizing the Constitution, and embracing government as the answer rather than personal responsibility, furthers the path to tyranny with the constant little "moderations" of law instead of teaching and instilling liberty and right living.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events, and a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers. Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons.

You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. The "need" argument should not be used in order to restrict freedom. Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. And to further your arguments of need, utility, and danger, you, and "your side," bring in notions of buying nuclear weapons, or tanks, or other behemoth weapons . . . just in case, I guess, that could actually happen. Do you know of anyone who "needs" or even wants such things? Or how it is even possible to legally buy them? Do you "need" moderation of law so badly that you use such examples?

Even it were possible to buy ultra destructive weapons in times of peace, what about another possibility. You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) But if it's possible for common folks in a modern democracy to buy weapons of mass destruction and then use them to kill huge populations, presumably for fun, or madness, or power, why is it not possible for a modern, democratic government, which can interpret and moderate existing law into means of restricting freedom, to also use its weapons to consolidate power in order to totally mandate what freedom is or isn't. If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms for what you consider a noble purpose, how do you restrict a government from using its power, for supposedly benevolent purposes, over the people whom it is supposed to serve?

You want a "reasonable" moderation of law in order to save some lives. What is a reasonable moderation of government power over ALL the people? Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable? What reasonable law gives the people such power to resist tyrannical force? Hand guns and limited magazines? What is the people's power if it is possible, by moderation of law, to limit the people's ability to defend themselves against government force?

Do you say that Democracy is the people's ultimate power? The power to vote? The last and most important resort? (They do vote in dictatorships.) Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule. If the mob is cultivated by the government, educationally, financially, morally, philosophically, politically--as Progressive ideology strives to do--and has persuaded the majority that the ruler's "reasonable" fairness, largesse, and control, is right and just, the power of the vote is sealed into the hands of government. The vote is bought and paid for by that government and sustained by its propaganda of mass justice. "Freedom" in that instance becomes a word, if still even used, to mean what that government says it means. And, what Progressives mean by that word is what they prescribe. And the freedoms they promise, in order to keep the people happy, are government provided "freedoms" FROM such things as want or emotional or physical suffering. They are not freedoms OF something individuals inherently possess . . . and which the government cannot abridge or deny. By "interpreting," thus changing, the word into meaning what Progressives want it to mean, freedom, no longer exists unless they say it does.

If such a state of affairs has already been achieved, it may well be too late for those who believe in the ultimate value of individual rights to resist a benevolent despotism. The only recourse is the inevitable financial collapse of such a society. Which could lead to another revolution to return to a classically liberal one, or for society to further collapse into recent forms of harsher tyranny, or even ancient ones that could last for thousands of years.

Isn't absolute adherence to the Constitution, not a moderate interpretation of it, a means to resist such a collapse?

And isn't the actual purpose of the Second Amendment one of the expressed points in the Constitution meant to give the people the power to resist tyranny? If the people cannot be trusted to support the actual freedom the Constitution gives them because some very few of them might use their freedom to kill others, then the Constitution should, indeed, be a useless relic.

But can they, on the whole, if they understand what freedom really is, be trusted not to misuse the power given to them for defense against tyranny? If they can, so informed, be trusted, what is the danger of the Second Amendment in its actual meaning and intent? Why must it be submitted to the process of moderation, which will become incessant until the Amendment is erased?

I think your other suggestion of returning to moral and other values would greatly limit the abuse of the Second Amendment, as well as the abuse of the Constitution as a whole. We should actually educate our citizens, beginning in childhood, on the real meaning of freedom, why it is necessary for the fulfillment of wonderful notions that are used to despair it such as fairness, equality, and justice. It would help to teach them the value of economics and how economy can work to reign in not only their personal financial destruction, but to reign in government spending into fiscal unsustainability. It would help to teach them in depth the reasoning of and final drafting of the Constitution, how and why it protects real freedom, and the dangers of interpreting it on personal emotions and notions of social justice. And much more teaching of various values that create a successful society of free individuals.

But, in my opinion, avoiding that path because it is deemed too difficult, or because those who teach don't believe any of it anyway, and instead keep tinkering on meanings of words, changing history, marginalizing the Constitution, and embracing government as the answer rather than personal responsibility, furthers the path to tyranny with the constant little "moderations" of law instead of teaching and instilling liberty and right living.

"I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events"

Guilty as charged.

"a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers"

My lack of trust isn't entirely a figment of my imagination, is it? There are perfectly innocent people in the ground, some of whom I feel would be alive today, if such things were banned. I would lose no sleep if you had such things, or if my Dad had such things. But there are small number of very sick people out there.

"Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons. "

Correct. The same logic applies to speed limits. Some drivers are capable of driving 100 mph and never doing any damage. But some can't. We recognize that, and ratified laws to forcibly moderate all drivers, even those who aren't a danger to others.

It has been generally accepted in our history, that the second amendment isn't absolute or limitless. Not many people would support the idea of a citizen being able to buy a stealth bomber or a rail gun or a nuke. The founding fathers were onboard with the notion of limiting the rights of all of us to bring guns on the campus of the University Of Virginia. Which tells me, that they never intended the "right to keep and bear arms" to be without limits.

"You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. "

Correct.

"Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. '

I disagree, and think you argument here is flawed. No one is suggesting that we ban everything that isn't necessary. I am suggesting we talk about banning things that (1) are not necessary, AND (2) can be used, as intended, to kill large numbers of citizens, in a small amount of time. You left out that second condition of what I would consider banning, and it's an important distinction.

"(whatever your or my "side" is)"

"My" side are those that would consider banning a small number of items in the name of public safety, "your" side, on this issue, are those who refuse. And I think you are more than smart enough to have already known that.

"You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.

"If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms"

I am confident that the data shows that the overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in gun stocks and high capacity magazines. And as I have said, I feel their "right" to own such things, is a matter of opinion, rather than a constitutional certainty.

"Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable?"

Yes. And in our country, the courts (and the constitution) give us all kinds of protection against tyranny. A couple of rifles in my basement, provide very little protection against tyranny. The feds can kill us all if they wanted, and there would be precious little we can do about it, armed or unarmed. If you want to convince me that I'm safer from tyranny if I get my Dad's Marlin .22 and keep it under my bed, well, that makes exactly zero sense to me.

"Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule"

Correct. Which is why we don't have that, we have a Republic, which is restricted by the Constitution.

I want to discuss banning the weapons of war. I am not going to be persuaded against having that conversation, because of your elegantly-worded fears that it would lead to cultural, economic, historical ruin of our nation.

Every criminal law on the books, restricts the choices that we can make. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to increase the restrictions, or further decrease liberty if that's how you prefer to frame it, if even one life can be saved, and very little (in my opinion, obviously many disagree) is given up in return.

We can probably put this to bed, until the next one.

[Nebe]

Imagine the heads that explode when the gun store owner refuses to sell a gun to a gay man or woman over “religious beliefs”.
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

"I've listened to your arguments. They seem, to me, to be based on your emotional reactions to events"

Guilty as charged.

"a lack of trust in a free people's owning lethal things, especially things that can quickly kill in large numbers"

My lack of trust isn't entirely a figment of my imagination, is it?

I said "trust in a free people". I have said over and over what I mean by freedom as opposed to license. I suggest that the figment of your imagination isn't free people. Rather it is your lack of trust in those who are not free. Who do not respect the freedom of others, and are slaves to their sick desire of having the power to determine the life or death of others.

There are perfectly innocent people in the ground, some of whom I feel would be alive today, if such things were banned.

There are millions more in the ground, or were cremated, or were disposed of in various ways who were not able to defend themselves from their own government or from sick, armed, criminals. It would be wonderful if the world population decided to produce no more firearms or WMDs. Then we could go back to killing each other with swords, spears, arrows, clubs, either in war or peace. Mass killings would be less likely in that way. Things were better and safer then in the days when such were the weapons of choice. Notwithstanding that ancient battles often resulted in thousands or tens of thousands of death.

No, actually, things were not better then. Something else happened to make things better. Not perfect, as you say, but better--even though worse weapons have been produced and used. Maybe, in some way, because they were produced. Unfortunately, a worldwide ban on the production of guns is not yet feasible. It could begin if all governments would disarm. That's not likely soon, or ever. But armed governments ruling disarmed citizens has led to various tyrannies in history. And we have, on one hand, a chance that it might work here, but an equal, or more likely chance that it won't.

The thing that happened which made things better for the masses was their empowerment to control the governing process. If we give that process back to the rulers, as Progressives would have us do, they would have to be the angels that Madison said humans are not. I agree with Madison. And the progressive march to disarm us does not help us to maintain control of the governing process. Not at this time.

I would lose no sleep if you had such things, or if my Dad had such things. But there are small number of very sick people out there.

Yet the private property rights of the massive majority of those you can trust to own what is explicitly, constitutionally, protected against regulation, must be judged and restricted because of that small number of very sick people.

"Because some, who are not truly free but possessed by a need for power over others or are mentally deranged, will misuse lethal weapons, all others, who are free of such dangers and believe in and respect the freedom of others must be "moderated" in their desire to own various weapons. "

Correct. The same logic applies to speed limits. Some drivers are capable of driving 100 mph and never doing any damage. But some can't. We recognize that, and ratified laws to forcibly moderate all drivers, even those who aren't a danger to others.

Speeding on public roads is not constitutionally protected. Nor does it help us to control the governing process.

It has been generally accepted in our history, that the second amendment isn't absolute or limitless.

Being generally accepted is not a mark of being right or good. What is generally accepted does not even remain the same, decade to decade, or to weeks, or to days, or to hours.

The Second Amendment is not only an expressed right, not to be abridged, to own arms, it also involves a natural right to own a property. Natural rights are considered absolute, and the Second Amendment removes that particular property even further from being restricted. You can't be more absolute than that.

Now, if you want to terminate an absolute right, first begin with emotional arguments regarding extreme events. After succeeding by using that to gain some smaller victory for restriction, then chip away with appeals to fear over less extreme events which, none-the-less cause emotional distress. All the while preaching that some law, or anything else for that matter, is not absolute, not limitless, and never has been. Back that claim up with not quite parallel arguments or examples, often even with totally false parallels, and keep appealing to emotions and fears. Over time, when enough people, especially in educational, media, and political (usually party policy) places come over to your way of thinking, you can begin to marginalize your opponents, as kooks, crazies, conspiracists, extremists, or heartless, mindless supporters of stupidity and cruelty.

Not many people would support the idea of a citizen being able to buy a stealth bomber or a rail gun or a nuke.

Good one. I forgot to mention using the tactic of positing extreme hypotheticals that are improbable.

The founding fathers were onboard with the notion of limiting the rights of all of us to bring guns on the campus of the University Of Virginia. Which tells me, that they never intended the "right to keep and bear arms" to be without limits.

Sigh . . . let me try to put it in another way which might break its way into your consciousness. Probably not, but worth the discussion.

The Constitution cannot contradict itself. Its various parts work in concord. Each part is a simple microcosm regarding the expansive domain of its subject. It would be impossible, if not futile, to express every microscopic detail of intent and effect, every legalistic keyhole, and every connection to every part of the whole document. And yet it must not contradict itself.

For example, if the Constitution guarantees the right to own and bear something, and it also guarantees the right to own property, it may appear to contradict the right to bear arms, for instance, in a place whose owner bans arms from his property. It appears that, indeed, there is a limitation on bearing arms. Well . . . no, there is no contradiction. If one considers the Constitution as a whole, then it is obvious that the right to bear arms as expressed in the Second Amendment does not include your right to carry on the property of someone who does not wish you to do so. The Constitution frames the right to bear arms within the context of the whole, within the congruence of all rights and restrictions that the document grants or denies. There is no limitation on the right to bear arms in the context of the whole Constitution. It is obvious that the expressed right, if it is congruent with the right to own property, that the right to carry does not apply to violating property rights, or any other rights in the Constitution. The right to own arms is not affected or abridged by your Virginia University example. And the right to carry is not abridged by that example. The right to carry on the property whose owner bans guns there was never included, due to Constitutional congruence, in the Second Amendment.

"You, and those on "your side", say we don't "need" such things. "

Correct.

"Being reduced to "need" leaves little to be free of and free about. '

I disagree, and think you argument here is flawed. No one is suggesting that we ban everything that isn't necessary. I am suggesting we talk about banning things that (1) are not necessary, AND (2) can be used, as intended, to kill large numbers of citizens, in a small amount of time. You left out that second condition of what I would consider banning, and it's an important distinction.

Where does the federal government get the power to ban things that are not necessary? You do realize that getting the foot in the door of one type of "unnecessary" creates the precedent for banning another type. If you have paid attention to how the Supreme Court has worked to change constitutional meaning you would have seen that such method of "interpretation" has been used. The ACA is one powerful current example of using bad precedent on taxation to restrict our right in another area, health care and our right not to buy insurance and to impose draconian rules on insurance companies. And that now gives precedent, if and when the government chooses, to restrict our right not to buy anything else it wants to force us to buy.

That is a mighty power indeed. Wow . . . I'm overwhelmed by the havoc that could be wreaked, personally and economically, if government began banning "unnecessary things.

And I did not leave out the second condition of what you consider banning. I stated it in this very post to which you are responding.

And the talk about banning has been going on for a long time. The notion that we haven't had, or have not even started to have, a conversation on gun control is ridiculous. Instead of talking about not talking, how about just stating what you think can be done. About things that have been done which haven't stopped mass shootings. The worst in our history just occurred in spite of all that has been done. Several things have been suggested which most agree would not stop the shootings. There is no ban on coming up with a solution. Go for it.

"(whatever your or my "side" is)"

"My" side are those that would consider banning a small number of items in the name of public safety, "your" side, on this issue, are those who refuse. And I think you are more than smart enough to have already known that.

It sounds as if there is a discussion, but a lack of agreement. It looks like you believe that "your side" is smarter and "my side" must agree with you.

"You, or at least "your side" (whatever your or my "side" is) don't think we need to be concerned about government becoming tyrannical. (I realize that word applied to modern socialistic type government is antiquated, kind of kooky or conspiratorial.) "

In this country, I'm not that worried. And I fit happened, I fail to see how owning bump stocks can protect you from a newly-totalitarian government that can launch a Hellfire missile through my bedroom window from 1,000 miles away, and choose whether it impacts my side of the bed or my wife's side. There's a better chance that a weapons stockpile in my closet, will keep me safe from zombies, than it will from the US military. If I lived in Nicaragua, I might feel differently.

You colorfully fleshed out what I said. Thank you. But your kooky characterization is beside the point. The point of the Second Amendment (and the Constitution as a whole) is to dissuade the federal government from ever getting to that position. And if it ever arrived the war would not be as simple as you portray it. There would be those in the military who would prefer to launch hellfire missiles in the other direction. There would be those who would be willing to disperse weapons to as many civilians as was possible. If the majority of people were armed, and willing to fight, it would be difficult for the military remaining on the tyrannical side to defeat them. And there would not be enough hellfire missiles and fighter planes, etc. to wipe out a determined populace. That is the intention of the Second Amendment and the Constitution.

But if the people are not armed. And if enough of them are dependent on the government, and have been conditioned by media and schools, then, like the British with the Tories, the patriots would have a difficult time, no doubt. We are probably at such a point now where there is not enough conviction, or even belief, in constitutional principles to fight for them. And the dependence on government has gotten so large that numbers are in its favor. So the Second Amendment, what is left of it, is just one piece of resistance. The battle now is for peacefully, democratically, retaining what is left of the founding freedoms and to restore them before we quietly allow the fundamental transformation to become the law (indeterminate as it will be) of the land.

That is a conversation some, many, are not willing, interested in, or capable of having.

"If you wish to restrict the vast majority of common citizens in their right to arms"

I am confident that the data shows that the overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in gun stocks and high capacity magazines. And as I have said, I feel their "right" to own such things, is a matter of opinion, rather than a constitutional certainty.

The overwhelming majority of citizens have exactly zero interest in many things. That doesn't discount the interest of the small number who are interested. Nor does lack of interest in something make that thing wrong. Should there be a consensus of what are the things we have a right to own? What is your version of a constitutional certainty other than and if all rights are limited?

"Is the power of the people to resist tyrannical government reasonable?"

Yes. And in our country, the courts (and the constitution) give us all kinds of protection against tyranny. A couple of rifles in my basement, provide very little protection against tyranny. The feds can kill us all if they wanted, and there would be precious little we can do about it, armed or unarmed. If you want to convince me that I'm safer from tyranny if I get my Dad's Marlin .22 and keep it under my bed, well, that makes exactly zero sense to me.

If all constitutional rights are limited and can be "interpreted" as needing further restrictions, what are all these kinds of protection against tyranny that the courts and Constitution give us? You have not seen court decisions that restrict freedoms? Have you seen an end to the plethora of federal restrictions, or have you seen the continuation, compounding, and expanding of various restrictions? Has the Progressive drive to restrict and transform stopped at some midway point, or does it continue to "improve" its restrictions with even more? Do you see a trajectory, as Spence might put it, in the direction of totally changing or eliminating that which is initially restricted with seemingly, as you say, very little given up in return?

"Democracy is rule by the majority. Essentially, in its most negative state, it is mob rule"

Correct. Which is why we don't have that, we have a Republic, which is restricted by the Constitution.

The republic is not restricted by the Constitution. The republican form of government is guaranteed against becoming a democracy or a dictatorship of any kind. The Constitution, as originally composed, restricts the federal government from transforming us from a republic into a centralized form of all powerful government. As it is progressively and incrementally being "interpreted," rather than restricting the federal government from becoming omnipotent, it encourages it in that direction. Trump, if nothing else, needs to be able to nominate originalist textualists who get appointed to the court. That's another fragile protection available, if realized, to reverse the Progressive direction.


I want to discuss banning the weapons of war. I am not going to be persuaded against having that conversation, because of your elegantly-worded fears that it would lead to cultural, economic, historical ruin of our nation.

If I were to persuade you against having a conversation, I wouldn't be having this conversation. Somehow, it is you that is expressing some fear, or discomfort of this conversation. I don't fear that your conversation would lead to what you say I fear. Why do you imply, again, that no-one wants to discuss your opinions, that you should shut up? Do you prefer that I shut up?

Every criminal law on the books, restricts the choices that we can make. In my opinion, it would be a good idea to increase the restrictions, or further decrease liberty if that's how you prefer to frame it, if even one life can be saved, and very little (in my opinion, obviously many disagree) is given up in return.

We can probably put this to bed, until the next one.

Criminal law and Constitutional law are different things. Among other differences, the main one is that criminal law limits the people, and constitutional law limits the government, especially the federal government. And you do it again. You use one type of law as a transferrable example of how to impose another type. There is no confluence between criminal law and constitutional law. You cannot rightly use criminal law as a precedent for constitutional law.

[ReelinRod]

Originally Posted by detbuch

Criminal law and Constitutional law are different things. Among other differences, the main one is that criminal law limits the people, and constitutional law limits the government, especially the federal government.

Nurturing that mingling of criminal with constitutional law is a prime directive of the progressive agenda.

Criminalizing the simple exercising of protected activity and the possession and use of protected property is a daily endeavor.

The mutation and reforming of language is another; the redefining of what a "right" is has been ongoing for 75 years.

Today, social, cultural and economic rights which have no presence in, or legitimacy under, the COTUSA, enjoy a higher status than the original, fundamental retained rights recognized and secured in the Bill of Rights.

I've enjoyed your posts in this thread.

[spence]

Jim, hahahahahaha...
Posted from my iPhone/Mobile device

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

So what the two of you seem to be saying, is that at the time the Bill Of Rights was crafted, it only limited what the feds could do? The United States Constitution did not apply to the states? States were free to violate the constitution as they saw fit? I majored in math, not history, but that doesn't sound right at all. You're saying a state could pass a law banning Christianity, and the United States Constitution would not have trumped that state law?

I said several times in various threads re the Constitution, including, I think, this one, that the enumerations of the Constitution grant unlimited (supreme) power WITHIN THOSE ENUMERATIONS. That is, within the limited powers that the Constitution grants to the federal government. That is what is meant by the phrase in article VI "in pursuance thereof." That is, as the article says "This Constitution, and the Laws of the United States [When the Consitution refers to the United States it is referring to the federal government--when it refers to the separate states it says the "several States]which shall be made in Pursuance thereof;"--in that sentence, if you follow the punctuation, thereof refers to the Constitution, in pursuance thereof means according to that Constitution. In essence, the article makes supreme any United States law THAT IS CONSTITUTIONAL. That is, Any law that falls within the enumerated powers given to it.

Those powers of legislation that are not included in the enumerated powers granted to the United States, are reserved to the several States and their people. There is no enumeration in the Constitution which gives the federal government power to regulate the people's right to own guns.

It has only been in recent SCOTUS decisions, if I remember correctly, that much of the Bill of Rights have been deemed to apply to the several States as well as the United States. But, certainly, in Madison's and Jefferson's time, the 2nd Amendment's restriction against government regulation did not apply to the several States.

"when you refuse to accept something, that's the end of the discussion for you"


Not so. I asked a question for the specific purpose of continuing the conversation. The supremacy clause is in the original draft of the constitution, I think, Article 6. It says pretty clearly that the US Constitution is the law of the land, "and that "the judges in every state shall be bound thereby, any thing in the laws or constitutions of any state notwithstanding."

Yes, the Constitution is the law of the land in regard to what government can or cannot do and that referred mostly to the United States at the time it was written. It is (was) not the law of the land in instances of criminal and other legal matters which was left to the several States to create and apply. And United States law is supreme over the laws of the several States so long as U.S. law is within bounds of constitutional limitations. That is, within the scope of the enumerated powers the Constitution gives to the federal government.


That suggests to me, that the state of VA was prohibited from passing any laws which didn't comply with the Constitution. The fathers thereby agreed that the campus ban, was not a violation of that amendment.

No, the state of VA was not prohibited at that time from passing gun laws, nor was it subject to federal legislation re the ownership or carrying of arms. The U.S. government had no constitutional power, at that time, to regulate gun ownership. And the Constitution did not prohibit the several States from passing such laws.

We don't need to argue over the second amendment as a litmus test for the constitutionality of limits on protected freedoms. The freedom of speech does not include threatening or child pornography. There are therefore limits to the freedoms guaranteed in the Bill Of Rights, which are not unconstitutional. That's all I am saying.

Freedom of speech did not refer to all speech in every place. Certainly, speech which threatened or restricted others rights would have been contrary to all founding principles, especially the Declaration of Independence which is a legally referred to document re constitutional questions. The right to life and liberty are not to be denied or threatened by words or guns. So, yeah, as I mentioned in the previous responses to you, in which I also cover child porn, the Constitution cannot contradict itself. There is a congruence in which all "rights" work together. And yeah, there is that internal limitation on rights. You have often said that your rights end at my nose or something like that. But federal government rights do not stop at your nose--so long as they are within constitutional limits.

BTW, if the Supremacy Clause meant what you think it does, then the Constitution, the "supreme law of the land" would be very short and of no need for articles and clauses and amendments. It could say something like "There shall be elections to determine the rulers of the land who have the supreme power to subject the citizens to any law they see fit." There would be no room for State laws, nor any need for the states to exist.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

Again, when some of the founding fathers were on the board of governors at the University Of Virginia, they passed a rule saying no guns were allowed on campus. They didn't say you could have a gun as long as you weren't threatening someone...they said you could not possess a gun on campus at all. The founding fathers apparently did not believe that such a ban was a violation of the second amendment.

As explained to you, the Founders did not consider that the Bill of Rights applied to the individual states. At the time, the individual states were sovereign entities. Actually, they were considered separate "countries." And those countries agreed to a compact with each other for the purposes of mutual protection and free trade economic relationships. They were jealous to protect their own ability to govern themselves, and were fearful of a central power dictating to them what they could or could not do and which could tax them at will, as the British were trying to do and which inflamed the Revolution in the first place.

The struggle in the Constitutional Convention was to make their compact strong enough to work as they intended it to, but not to be so strong that it could willy nilly dictate to, or tax, the states. On the contrary, writing the Constitution was an act of the sovereign states dictating to the federal power which they created. That Constitution gave the central government certain powers, as enumerated in their final Constitution. And it constrained the federal government to, and only to, those powers. Any remaining power of government rested with the states and their citizens to construe. Each state had its own constitution.

The Constitution they created was intended to apply to the federal government. The Supremacy clause that you previously alluded to gave federal law supremacy only within the limited powers that their Constitution allowed. The Supremacy clause did not give the central government supreme power over the separate states. On the contrary, the states retained most of the powers, the "vast residuum" to which Madison referred. The states have tremendous power, constitutionally, over the federal government, if they chose to assert it. The difficulty is getting 3/4's of them to agree on wielding that power. The states have the power to dissolve the federal government and go on their separate ways or form a new compact.

A small example of state power vs federal in current politics is the formation of sanctuary cities. The federal government cannot ban them. It can only threaten to hold back federal funds to those cities. But federal funds to cities or states is another can of worms. Federal funds are used as a carrot/stick to dictate to states in ways they have no constitutional authority to do.

In short, I'm getting to verbose as usual, Madison and Jefferson didn't apply the 2nd Amendment to the states, only to the central government.

I'm not someone who thinks the constitution is a living, evolving document. I prefer to think of what they meant, at the time it was crafted. The evidence seems compelling to me (we can disagree obviously), that they felt that certain restrictions in the name of public safety, are well within the intent of the second amendment.

The Founders didn't restrict the states by the 2nd Amendment. States had their own constitutions which applied to and were supported by their citizens. So, whatever gun control the states wanted to apply would have to be decided by permission of their citizens. So, if the board of governors of the university wanted to disallow guns on campus, Jefferson and Madison would have thought they had the right to do so, any objections they might have had notwithstanding. If you think that meant that Madison and Jefferson also meant the federal government could also control private ownership of guns, you are wrong. Such a notion is not, as you put it, well within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

If one could construe that any state action would somehow be evidence that the federal government had the same power, and that the federal government was supreme in its own powers, then there would be no such thing as state sovereignty. There would be no need for state constitutions or criminal statutes or civil codes. There would, in effect, be no need of separate states. And we would have long ago dissolved them and become one State, with unlimited power.

That, BTW, is the Progressive ideal.

[Jim in CT]

Originally Posted by detbuch

The Founders didn't restrict the states by the 2nd Amendment. States had their own constitutions which applied to and were supported by their citizens. So, whatever gun control the states wanted to apply would have to be decided by permission of their citizens. So, if the board of governors of the university wanted to disallow guns on campus, Jefferson and Madison would have thought they had the right to do so, any objections they might have had notwithstanding. If you think that meant that Madison and Jefferson also meant the federal government could also control private ownership of guns, you are wrong. Such a notion is not, as you put it, well within the intent of the 2nd Amendment.

If one could construe that any state action would somehow be evidence that the federal government had the same power, and that the federal government was supreme in its own powers, then there would be no such thing as state sovereignty. There would be no need for state constitutions or criminal statutes or civil codes. There would, in effect, be no need of separate states. And we would have long ago dissolved them and become one State, with unlimited power.

That, BTW, is the Progressive ideal.

OK, I agree with you that the supremacy clause limits the areas in which federal law trumps state law, to those powers enumerated in the constitution. But it would seem that gun rights and restrictions fall into that category, as some state gun restrictions have been struck down as being unconstitutional, as prescribed in the US constitution.

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...itutional.html

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus. That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

[detbuch]

Originally Posted by Jim in CT

OK, I agree with you that the supremacy clause limits the areas in which federal law trumps state law, to those powers enumerated in the constitution. But it would seem that gun rights and restrictions fall into that category, as some state gun restrictions have been struck down as being unconstitutional, as prescribed in the US constitution.

In this well-known case, the DC gun ban was determined by a federal judge, to be contrary to the US Constitution, and therefore invalid. Therefore, when states enact gun restrictions, those restrictions must pass constitutional muster.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/2014...itutional.html

So if states want to ban things like bump stocks or high capacity magazines, that's not necessarily unconstitutional for states to do that...just as it wasn't unconstitutional for VA to declare that guns weren't allowed on campus. That's all I'm saying, all I am doing is responding to those who say that any restrictions on guns, are unconstitutional.

OK. We seem to be getting somewhere. There's farther to go and I'm too tired to go there at this moment. I think ScottW is getting there with his posts. You and he might arrive at the sweet spot in the debate. But, at the least, if you're shifting away from the federal government's attempt at gun control, then we're getting somewhere. Now you can campaign for Connecticut gun control, and quit jumping on the bandwagon for federal control.