Total Posts:71|Showing Posts:1-30|Last Page
Jump to topic:

"A well organized militia"

thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
William.Burnham
Posts: 50
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 2:47:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

When you look at the Bill of Rights, every single right applies directly to individual people. Only when it comes to the second amendment does the left try to change this, just like they did when the democrats had the south and they wanted to disarm blacks. To fight that particular disarmament of the black community and to stop the ideology behind it from spreading to other people, the NRA was formed.
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:11:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

So, the government shouldn't pass laws because it's going to encourage criminals do do illegal stuff?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:12:29 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 2:47:12 AM, William.Burnham wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

When you look at the Bill of Rights, every single right applies directly to individual people. Only when it comes to the second amendment does the left try to change this, just like they did when the democrats had the south and they wanted to disarm blacks. To fight that particular disarmament of the black community and to stop the ideology behind it from spreading to other people, the NRA was formed.

I'm not sure you understood my question. It's not if this interpretation is correct, but rather if this is a "careful what you wish for" type situation for liberals. If they got their wish and the judiciary started interpreting the second amendment in this way it would fuel a massive growth in right wing militia groups.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:14:18 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

You're of course free to hold to that position, but to be intellectually consistent you must also hold to the position that, for example, the fourth amendment does not apply to wiretapping of phones because the 4th amendment only applies to what was considered an unreasonable search at the time.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:16:11 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:11:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

So, the government shouldn't pass laws because it's going to encourage criminals do do illegal stuff?

Who said anything about criminals? I said that if you limit the right to bear arms to militias you would see a HUGE rise in militia groups which is another thing liberals decry. Their goals are *much* better served by just advocating reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms for the public good than it is trying to make some encompassing constitutional argument.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:18:35 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:14:18 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

You're of course free to hold to that position, but to be intellectually consistent you must also hold to the position that, for example, the fourth amendment does not apply to wiretapping of phones because the 4th amendment only applies to what was considered an unreasonable search at the time.
No, I don't think it does by default.

I think that the fourth amendment applying to "x" in addition to what it originally upheld in the constitution can be approved via court of law, but it shouldn't be accepted constitutional by default if it did not clearly apply to the wiretapping of phones in the first place.

This is akin to how the 2nd amendment applying to assault weapons or modern rifles shouldn't be accepted by default. In fact, the 2nd amendment has already been ruled as not being definitively applicable to all modern weapons.. we pretty much said "oh, and bazookas and flamethrowers don't count by default", so to say that other weapons do, you have to justify it.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:29:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:18:35 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:14:18 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

You're of course free to hold to that position, but to be intellectually consistent you must also hold to the position that, for example, the fourth amendment does not apply to wiretapping of phones because the 4th amendment only applies to what was considered an unreasonable search at the time.
No, I don't think it does by default.

I think that the fourth amendment applying to "x" in addition to what it originally upheld in the constitution can be approved via court of law, but it shouldn't be accepted constitutional by default if it did not clearly apply to the wiretapping of phones in the first place.

Well, at least you're being consistent. The problem with your argument here, though, is that you're advocating the judiciary extending the spirit of constitutional law by adding new things to our perceptions of what the amendments adapt to the modern world. That's not how it works, but even if I granted you the point, liberals have argued since the decision was made that DC v. Heller--where the court decided definitively that the second amendment did apply to the individual right to bear arms--was an instance of the court creating a right that wasn't previously there. Since you seem to be okay with this, doesn't this completely undermine your argument? If the court *recently* "updated" the second amendment as it were, how would that apply only to weapons that were in existence in the founders time?

This is akin to how the 2nd amendment applying to assault weapons or modern rifles shouldn't be accepted by default. In fact, the 2nd amendment has already been ruled as not being definitively applicable to all modern weapons.. we pretty much said "oh, and bazookas and flamethrowers don't count by default", so to say that other weapons do, you have to justify it.

Of course the grounds for what kind of arms are covered is up for debate but I disagree on having to justify it. In a common law system, every action is presumed legal until the ruled otherwise. It would be your burden of proof to prove what kind of arms shouldn't be legal--it's also very, very easy to prove that things like flamethrowers should not be legal.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:39:50 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:16:11 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:11:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

So, the government shouldn't pass laws because it's going to encourage criminals do do illegal stuff?

Who said anything about criminals? I said that if you limit the right to bear arms to militias you would see a HUGE rise in militia groups which is another thing liberals decry. Their goals are *much* better served by just advocating reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms for the public good than it is trying to make some encompassing constitutional argument.

If laws are passed to restrict weapon ownership, and after that people start stockpiling weapons, then those people are criminals.

But to your point, I'm not sure that "reasonable restrictions" are things that potential right wing radicals will agree on -because it's pretty clear that they believe that even the present restriction regime is too "oppressive."

What does a "reasonable restriction" to firearm ownership look like to you?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:43:37 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:39:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:16:11 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:11:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

So, the government shouldn't pass laws because it's going to encourage criminals do do illegal stuff?

Who said anything about criminals? I said that if you limit the right to bear arms to militias you would see a HUGE rise in militia groups which is another thing liberals decry. Their goals are *much* better served by just advocating reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms for the public good than it is trying to make some encompassing constitutional argument.

If laws are passed to restrict weapon ownership, and after that people start stockpiling weapons, then those people are criminals.

Not if they're in a militia...and that's just the point. To circumvent the law, militia groups would rise exponentially.

But to your point, I'm not sure that "reasonable restrictions" are things that potential right wing radicals will agree on -because it's pretty clear that they believe that even the present restriction regime is too "oppressive."

They don't have to agree, though, only enough voters/politicians do to pass policy.

What does a "reasonable restriction" to firearm ownership look like to you?

I'm not really sure at this point
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:55:39 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:43:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:39:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:16:11 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:11:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

So, the government shouldn't pass laws because it's going to encourage criminals do do illegal stuff?

Who said anything about criminals? I said that if you limit the right to bear arms to militias you would see a HUGE rise in militia groups which is another thing liberals decry. Their goals are *much* better served by just advocating reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms for the public good than it is trying to make some encompassing constitutional argument.

If laws are passed to restrict weapon ownership, and after that people start stockpiling weapons, then those people are criminals.

Not if they're in a militia...and that's just the point. To circumvent the law, militia groups would rise exponentially.

In most places, there are no laws restricting armed association in the United States. There are many laws restricting where guns may be brought, however, whether someone is in a militia or not. That is because you do not gain more privileges under the law as a private citizen if you form a group.

But to your point, I'm not sure that "reasonable restrictions" are things that potential right wing radicals will agree on -because it's pretty clear that they believe that even the present restriction regime is too "oppressive."

They don't have to agree, though, only enough voters/politicians do to pass policy.

Ok, so if we pass laws that they disagree with, they're going to try to form groups of armed association -applying your logic, then.

You're conceding that they disagree, so why would what your suggesting (moderate restrictions) not produce the same harm that you're trying to avoid (private militias).

What does a "reasonable restriction" to firearm ownership look like to you?

I'm not really sure at this point

I'm not concerned with catering to this part of society. I don't see a reason to take away guns that may be used for traditional sporting purposes, but I'm people don't go deer hunting with AK-47's or Uzi's.
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 10:59:24 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
If I'm not mistaken, didn't "laymen" have access to guns around the time they wrote the second amendment? If what liberals are saying is true, then why didn't they try to disarm citizens during that time?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:02:54 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:55:39 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:43:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:39:50 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:16:11 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:11:35 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

So, the government shouldn't pass laws because it's going to encourage criminals do do illegal stuff?

Who said anything about criminals? I said that if you limit the right to bear arms to militias you would see a HUGE rise in militia groups which is another thing liberals decry. Their goals are *much* better served by just advocating reasonable restrictions on the right to bear arms for the public good than it is trying to make some encompassing constitutional argument.

If laws are passed to restrict weapon ownership, and after that people start stockpiling weapons, then those people are criminals.

Not if they're in a militia...and that's just the point. To circumvent the law, militia groups would rise exponentially.

In most places, there are no laws restricting armed association in the United States. There are many laws restricting where guns may be brought, however, whether someone is in a militia or not. That is because you do not gain more privileges under the law as a private citizen if you form a group.

If we interpreted the 2nd amendment to mean what many liberals say it means, you would gain more privileges under the law because if you were in a militia, you could bear arms whereas a citizen who was not couldn't.

But to your point, I'm not sure that "reasonable restrictions" are things that potential right wing radicals will agree on -because it's pretty clear that they believe that even the present restriction regime is too "oppressive."

They don't have to agree, though, only enough voters/politicians do to pass policy.

Ok, so if we pass laws that they disagree with, they're going to try to form groups of armed association -applying your logic, then.

No, because not all laws people disagree with give them a window sized loophole just by organizing into groups. What I'm saying is that many liberals argue that the 2nd amendment only applies to the collective right to bear arms within a militia, and if they succeeded in getting that interpretation recognized there would be a corresponding rise in militia groups which is another thing liberals decry.

You're conceding that they disagree, so why would what your suggesting (moderate restrictions) not produce the same harm that you're trying to avoid (private militias).

What does a "reasonable restriction" to firearm ownership look like to you?

I'm not really sure at this point

I'm not concerned with catering to this part of society. I don't see a reason to take away guns that may be used for traditional sporting purposes, but I'm people don't go deer hunting with AK-47's or Uzi's.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:03:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:29:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:18:35 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:14:18 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

You're of course free to hold to that position, but to be intellectually consistent you must also hold to the position that, for example, the fourth amendment does not apply to wiretapping of phones because the 4th amendment only applies to what was considered an unreasonable search at the time.
No, I don't think it does by default.

I think that the fourth amendment applying to "x" in addition to what it originally upheld in the constitution can be approved via court of law, but it shouldn't be accepted constitutional by default if it did not clearly apply to the wiretapping of phones in the first place.

Well, at least you're being consistent. The problem with your argument here, though, is that you're advocating the judiciary extending the spirit of constitutional law by adding new things to our perceptions of what the amendments adapt to the modern world. That's not how it works, but even if I granted you the point, liberals have argued since the decision was made that DC v. Heller--where the court decided definitively that the second amendment did apply to the individual right to bear arms--was an instance of the court creating a right that wasn't previously there. Since you seem to be okay with this, doesn't this completely undermine your argument? If the court *recently* "updated" the second amendment as it were, how would that apply only to weapons that were in existence in the founders time?
Unchangeable constitutions are usually counterproductive and will almost always inevitably fail at some point, unless they are written to an extremely broad degree, which the US constitution is not. The situation that arises from viewing the constitution as an everlasting and infinitely correct source of reference is complicated.

I'll admit that I'm satisfied (whilst I personally disagree with) the result of DC v Heller, largely because it proves in itself that the constitution and it's validity is already largely susceptible to what an assembly of indirectly appointed judges rule. Whilst I think that the court entirely misinterprets the context the second amendment was written via all my previous arguments, it still goes to prove that the 2nd amendment is malleable in itself.

.. so, I think the DC v Heller decision was de facto already modifying or "adding new perceptions" the constitution from it's original form, since it should never have been logically inferred beforehand that modern firearms were applicable under the original context of the 2nd amendment.


This is akin to how the 2nd amendment applying to assault weapons or modern rifles shouldn't be accepted by default. In fact, the 2nd amendment has already been ruled as not being definitively applicable to all modern weapons.. we pretty much said "oh, and bazookas and flamethrowers don't count by default", so to say that other weapons do, you have to justify it.

Of course the grounds for what kind of arms are covered is up for debate but I disagree on having to justify it. In a common law system, every action is presumed legal until the ruled otherwise. It would be your burden of proof to prove what kind of arms shouldn't be legal--it's also very, very easy to prove that things like flamethrowers should not be legal.
IMO, My burden of proof is, logically, to prove what firearms do or do not apply under the 2nd amendment in it's raw form, not to prove which ones shouldn't be.

If we apply contextualism - Only muskets and 18th century weaponry.
If we do not apply contextualism - All military armaments (bombs, heavy machinery, etc) in existence unless otherwise negated by a court of law. If ever negated, the 2nd amendment is not definite and is subject to change or re-orientation.

If a court of law reserves the right to rule bazookas/bombs not subjective to the 2nd amendment, then they also reserve the right to reserve that weapons capable of mass murder are not subjective to the 2nd amendment. This was not done in DC v Heller, but DC v Heller's existence proves it is possible for it to be done. No?
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:07:27 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
Moreover, a "well-regulated militia" is meaningless when the government gets to decide who gets to have guns i.e. what qualifies as a militia . The entire point of the amendment is to protect citizens against tyranny. Therefore, I think it should be interpreted as "in order to have a well-regulated militia, all citizens should have access to arms".
UchihaMadara
Posts: 1,049
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:18:32 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

that liberal argument is pretty dumb... constitutional rights are meant to be applied to everyone equally.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:22:02 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

Does the first amendment only protect 18th-century words? No. Does the fourth amendment only protect 18th-century items? No. Your logic is absurd.
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:28:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:07:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Moreover, a "well-regulated militia" is meaningless when the government gets to decide who gets to have guns i.e. what qualifies as a militia . The entire point of the amendment is to protect citizens against tyranny. Therefore, I think it should be interpreted as "in order to have a well-regulated militia, all citizens should have access to arms".

The original proposed text proposed by the House was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:33:58 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:22:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

Does the first amendment only protect 18th-century words? No. Does the fourth amendment only protect 18th-century items? No. Your logic is absurd.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that the technological limitations of the time, being what they were, as well as the practical necessity of firearm ownership at the time, compelled the founding fathers to write what they did. A compelling implication to that argument would be that if they knew, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, that there would be a brigade of individuals which later claimed that the second amendment entitled 9 year olds to shoot Uzis at firing ranges, they might have reconsidered its inclusion.

So, realize that not only are you straw manning Dalton's argument -which is irritating in and of itself- you're doing so because you fundamentally miss the point. The interpretation of the second amendment you think is "correct" is the version that the NRA invented in the 1960s during the Civil Right's movement as a response to the perceived "lawlessness" of the time. Gun rights became a political issue because society was in a state of relative tumult, and as a result the second amendment was re-interpreted to accommodate. Now, a generation later, that view is the "baseline" gun rights position -especially after Reagan's presidency -even though it is overwhelmingly clear from a close reading of the Federalist Papers as well as other documents contemporary to the constitution's authorship that no one intended a carte blanche right to own guns.

When you make arguments like that, you do two things: (1) you show how important this issue is to you, and (2) you illustrate the irrationality that is endemic to any discussion of gun rights. The reason that this is important to you is because you believe that guns are a necessary extension of the liberty you regard as your birthright, and that anything that might limit (however insignificantly) one's right to buy, own, possess, sell, transfer, etc. guns comes, necessarily, as an encroachment on that liberty. That is just not true, but, that doesn't matter because guns are an emotional attachment -which is why you're not concerned that other people might do bad things with them. You only care about your right to own them, and society suffers as a result.
YYW
Posts: 36,233
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:35:08 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:28:12 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Moreover, a "well-regulated militia" is meaningless when the government gets to decide who gets to have guns i.e. what qualifies as a militia . The entire point of the amendment is to protect citizens against tyranny. Therefore, I think it should be interpreted as "in order to have a well-regulated militia, all citizens should have access to arms".

The original proposed text proposed by the House was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

lol, and your point?
thett3
Posts: 14,334
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:43:12 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:03:58 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:29:37 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:18:35 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:14:18 AM, thett3 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

You're of course free to hold to that position, but to be intellectually consistent you must also hold to the position that, for example, the fourth amendment does not apply to wiretapping of phones because the 4th amendment only applies to what was considered an unreasonable search at the time.
No, I don't think it does by default.

I think that the fourth amendment applying to "x" in addition to what it originally upheld in the constitution can be approved via court of law, but it shouldn't be accepted constitutional by default if it did not clearly apply to the wiretapping of phones in the first place.

Well, at least you're being consistent. The problem with your argument here, though, is that you're advocating the judiciary extending the spirit of constitutional law by adding new things to our perceptions of what the amendments adapt to the modern world. That's not how it works, but even if I granted you the point, liberals have argued since the decision was made that DC v. Heller--where the court decided definitively that the second amendment did apply to the individual right to bear arms--was an instance of the court creating a right that wasn't previously there. Since you seem to be okay with this, doesn't this completely undermine your argument? If the court *recently* "updated" the second amendment as it were, how would that apply only to weapons that were in existence in the founders time?
Unchangeable constitutions are usually counterproductive and will almost always inevitably fail at some point, unless they are written to an extremely broad degree, which the US constitution is not. The situation that arises from viewing the constitution as an everlasting and infinitely correct source of reference is complicated.

I'll admit that I'm satisfied (whilst I personally disagree with) the result of DC v Heller, largely because it proves in itself that the constitution and it's validity is already largely susceptible to what an assembly of indirectly appointed judges rule. Whilst I think that the court entirely misinterprets the context the second amendment was written via all my previous arguments, it still goes to prove that the 2nd amendment is malleable in itself.

.. so, I think the DC v Heller decision was de facto already modifying or "adding new perceptions" the constitution from it's original form, since it should never have been logically inferred beforehand that modern firearms were applicable under the original context of the 2nd amendment.

I don't agree with your interpretation of the constitution, but that's not what's at issue. What is at issue is your argument that the 2nd amendment should only apply to 18th century weaponry--if the right is a newly created one, as you contend (it's not btw), then surely it applies to more than 18th century weaponry.


This is akin to how the 2nd amendment applying to assault weapons or modern rifles shouldn't be accepted by default. In fact, the 2nd amendment has already been ruled as not being definitively applicable to all modern weapons.. we pretty much said "oh, and bazookas and flamethrowers don't count by default", so to say that other weapons do, you have to justify it.

Of course the grounds for what kind of arms are covered is up for debate but I disagree on having to justify it. In a common law system, every action is presumed legal until the ruled otherwise. It would be your burden of proof to prove what kind of arms shouldn't be legal--it's also very, very easy to prove that things like flamethrowers should not be legal.
IMO, My burden of proof is, logically, to prove what firearms do or do not apply under the 2nd amendment in it's raw form, not to prove which ones shouldn't be.

If we apply contextualism - Only muskets and 18th century weaponry.
If we do not apply contextualism - All military armaments (bombs, heavy machinery, etc) in existence unless otherwise negated by a court of law. If ever negated, the 2nd amendment is not definite and is subject to change or re-orientation.

No, not by a court of law, by the legislature. The court was very clear that the state still has the right to restrict/ban some kinds of weapons.

If a court of law reserves the right to rule bazookas/bombs not subjective to the 2nd amendment, then they also reserve the right to reserve that weapons capable of mass murder are not subjective to the 2nd amendment. This was not done in DC v Heller, but DC v Heller's existence proves it is possible for it to be done. No?

Sure, I don't think an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional. A broad ban on all non 18th century weapons would be for two reasons: First, by your own argument the right applies to 21st century weaponry not 18th century weaponry because that's when the right was "created" as it were. Secondly, the court explicitly referenced weapons that are in common use in regard to what is constitutionally protected.
DDO Vice President

#StandwithBossy

#UnbanTheMadman

#BetOnThett

"Don't quote me, ever." -Max

"My name is max. I'm not a big fan of slacks"- Max rapping

"Walmart should have the opportunity to bribe a politician to it's agenda" -Max

"Thett, you're really good at convincing people you're a decent person"-tulle

"You fit the character of Regina George quite nicely"- Sam

: At 11/12/2016 11:49:40 PM, Raisor wrote:
: thett was right
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:46:10 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:22:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

Does the first amendment only protect 18th-century words? No. Does the fourth amendment only protect 18th-century items? No. Your logic is absurd.
You do not understand contextualism and have not read past the first paragraph of what I wrote, so I will not fully respond to you.

In brief, the second amendment only applies to the protection of the armaments used at the time of it's writing. To say that it doesn't, keeping contextualism in mind, the Founding Fathers would require godly powers of anticipation for you to say that they wrote the constitution with the right to possess modern day firearms in mind.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
dylancatlow
Posts: 12,241
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:46:38 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:33:58 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:22:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

Does the first amendment only protect 18th-century words? No. Does the fourth amendment only protect 18th-century items? No. Your logic is absurd.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that the technological limitations of the time, being what they were, as well as the practical necessity of firearm ownership at the time, compelled the founding fathers to write what they did. A compelling implication to that argument would be that if they knew, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, that there would be a brigade of individuals which later claimed that the second amendment entitled 9 year olds to shoot Uzis at firing ranges, they might have reconsidered its inclusion.

Then of course, there's the sane interpretation: that the founding fathers, in keeping with their view of how government should operate, saw the amendment as a means of preventing any future form of tyranny. Are you telling me they didn't anticipate possible tragedies down the line, or that they believed gun technology wouldn't progress?
TN05
Posts: 4,492
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:46:45 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:35:08 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:28:12 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:07:27 AM, dylancatlow wrote:
Moreover, a "well-regulated militia" is meaningless when the government gets to decide who gets to have guns i.e. what qualifies as a militia . The entire point of the amendment is to protect citizens against tyranny. Therefore, I think it should be interpreted as "in order to have a well-regulated militia, all citizens should have access to arms".

The original proposed text proposed by the House was "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country; but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person."

lol, and your point

Gives an idea of what people were thinking when writing it.
darkkermit
Posts: 11,204
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:51:41 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.

I think when liberals think of militia they think of the National Guard, not right-wing militias. And of course, if liberals control the government, then the military can be used to support left-wing causes.
Open borders debate:
http://www.debate.org...
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 11:55:22 AM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:33:58 AM, YYW wrote:
At 9/20/2014 11:22:02 AM, TN05 wrote:
At 9/20/2014 10:08:47 AM, Daltonian wrote:
At 9/20/2014 12:26:41 AM, thett3 wrote:
I've seen some liberals argue before that the second amendments protection of the right to bear arms only applies to militiamen, not laymen. After reading the Bsh-Whiteflame debate it got me thinking--are liberals shooting themselves in the foot here? Would they really want to foster the growth of right wing militias by limiting the right to bear arms to them alone? It sounds like a position that would lead to hugely unintended consequences.
The second amendment should only reasonably apply to the context and definition of the word "arms" when the constitution was written. The 2nd amendment permitting the civilian possession of wartime weapons or weapons capable of mass murder is literally only justified as a play on semantics and the contrasting definition of "right to bear arms" in the 18th and 21st centuries.

Does the first amendment only protect 18th-century words? No. Does the fourth amendment only protect 18th-century items? No. Your logic is absurd.

There is a very compelling argument to be made that the technological limitations of the time, being what they were, as well as the practical necessity of firearm ownership at the time, compelled the founding fathers to write what they did. A compelling implication to that argument would be that if they knew, at the time the Bill of Rights was written, that there would be a brigade of individuals which later claimed that the second amendment entitled 9 year olds to shoot Uzis at firing ranges, they might have reconsidered its inclusion.

So, realize that not only are you straw manning Dalton's argument -which is irritating in and of itself- you're doing so because you fundamentally miss the point. The interpretation of the second amendment you think is "correct" is the version that the NRA invented in the 1960s during the Civil Right's movement as a response to the perceived "lawlessness" of the time. Gun rights became a political issue because society was in a state of relative tumult, and as a result the second amendment was re-interpreted to accommodate. Now, a generation later, that view is the "baseline" gun rights position -especially after Reagan's presidency -even though it is overwhelmingly clear from a close reading of the Federalist Papers as well as other documents contemporary to the constitution's authorship that no one intended a carte blanche right to own guns.

When you make arguments like that, you do two things: (1) you show how important this issue is to you, and (2) you illustrate the irrationality that is endemic to any discussion of gun rights. The reason that this is important to you is because you believe that guns are a necessary extension of the liberty you regard as your birthright, and that anything that might limit (however insignificantly) one's right to buy, own, possess, sell, transfer, etc. guns comes, necessarily, as an encroachment on that liberty. That is just not true, but, that doesn't matter because guns are an emotional attachment -which is why you're not concerned that other people might do bad things with them. You only care about your right to own them, and society suffers as a result.
+1 to this response
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 12:04:59 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 11:43:12 AM, thett3 wrote:
If we apply contextualism - Only muskets and 18th century weaponry.
If we do not apply contextualism - All military armaments (bombs, heavy machinery, etc) in existence unless otherwise negated by a court of law. If ever negated, the 2nd amendment is not definite and is subject to change or re-orientation.

No, not by a court of law, by the legislature. The court was very clear that the state still has the right to restrict/ban some kinds of weapons.

If a court of law reserves the right to rule bazookas/bombs not subjective to the 2nd amendment, then they also reserve the right to reserve that weapons capable of mass murder are not subjective to the 2nd amendment. This was not done in DC v Heller, but DC v Heller's existence proves it is possible for it to be done. No?

Sure, I don't think an assault weapons ban would be unconstitutional. A broad ban on all non 18th century weapons would be for two reasons: First, by your own argument the right applies to 21st century weaponry not 18th century weaponry because that's when the right was "created" as it were. Secondly, the court explicitly referenced weapons that are in common use in regard to what is constitutionally protected.
At this moment in time and judging the ruling put forth by DC v Heller, yes, such a ban would be unconstitutional. But if whether or not "x" is constitutional is entirely subsistent on a court's ruling, how is it constitutional at all?

The 2nd amendment, taken entirely literally and out of context, without the accompaniment of any new perceptions put forward by modern courts, would allow the every day possession of nuclear weapons, grenades, tanks, bazookas, etc.. what does this in itself mean? That the 2nd amendment's entire validity is largely subsistent on corrections of the court.

If the 2nd amendment taken contextually, without the accompaniment of any new perceptions put forward by modern courts, it would protect one's right to own basic hunting arms that are to the standard produced in 1800 - nothing else. In modern society, this amendment wouldn't be particularly applicative.

Because the 2nd amendment literally relies on the court system to consistently correct and alter it, people shouldn't be citing it but rather decisions like DC v Heller when defending gun rights. It means nothing if it's applicative state is a matter of how many liberal or conservative justices there are on the Supreme Court at the time of a decision about it's meaning. That's all really my opinion.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby
Daltonian
Posts: 4,797
Add as Friend
Challenge to a Debate
Send a Message
9/20/2014 12:06:06 PM
Posted: 2 years ago
At 9/20/2014 12:02:49 PM, dylancatlow wrote:
In any case, there's no turning back now. Criminals will always have access to firearms in the United States.
That's not very optimistic!

Depending on policy, how much access they have to firearms could be swayed.
F _ C K
All I need is "u", baby