Site Search:
 
TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International
Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index Korean Job Discussion Forums
"The Internet's Meeting Place for ESL/EFL Teachers from Around the World!"
 
 FAQFAQ   SearchSearch   MemberlistMemberlist   UsergroupsUsergroups   RegisterRegister 
 ProfileProfile   Log in to check your private messagesLog in to check your private messages   Log inLog in 

We need MORE guns.
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
 
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum
View previous topic :: View next topic  
Author Message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:51 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fox wrote:
the Second Amendment was never really about the right of individuals to bear arms, but rather, was always about the militias.

Fortunately, it does say (and has been legally interpreted to mean) "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I guess we should count ourselves lucky that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

In fact, the right of the People to keep and bear arms is directly related to the militia in that the People would be ready to participate in a militia using their own weapons. Perhaps they should have wrote "A well regulated militia, being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the People to keep and bear militia-quality arms shall not be infringed so they are ready to join said militia". But then that gets a little wordy, doesn't it?


Yes, but I'd say it's clear enough that it was not meant to be interpreted as being about individual rights since it says 'the people', or the collective citizenship.


Last edited by 12ax7 on Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:57 pm; edited 1 time in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 8:53 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:
Fox wrote:
the Second Amendment was never really about the right of individuals to bear arms, but rather, was always about the militias.


Fortunately, it does say (and has been legally interpreted to mean) "the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed". I guess we should count ourselves lucky that it doesn't say "the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".


Which is more important when it comes to understanding the historic intentions behind the Second Amendment?

1) How Comm reads the Amendment in question?

or

2) The justifications those who demanded the Amendment's adoption gave?

I'm not saying you have to be an originalist -- I am not, so it would be hypocritical of me to demand anyone else be -- but I am saying that the historical intentions behind this Amendment are clear based on the recorded words of those who demanded it, and they are not the radically individualistic ideals you would have projected upon it. The "People" being talked about here are a collective, and the interests behind the demands for this Amendment were collective, and the Federal government already had no right to disarm people even without the Second Amendment, proving that there was more at work here than random people simply afraid the bad old Feds were going to grab their guns.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 9:54 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Quote:
"A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed."


Le Sigh, just because something isn't explicitly stated, doesn't mean it wasn't in the minds, nor are the only rights found, those that are explicitly stated.

If you want to only look at the paragraph and not at history and the thoughts and writings of those involved, then fine.

Quote:
And duels were illegal.


FLAT OUT WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

Dude, that took a 30 second google search, you could have at least done that before making that claim.

Quote:
He's not wrong, though. James Madison seems to have felt that the Second Amendment was actually implicit in the Constitution already. It was added on the demands of certain parties, and they explained their reasons pretty clearly. For example:


I don't disagree that was one motivation for putting it in, even the primary motivation, but like all political compromises, and this is one, the reason for implementation often varies between parties involved. Just because anti-slave revolt measures were one part, does not exclude other parts.

Quote:
they were worried about the possibility of the Federal government using its defense powers to put a de facto end to slavery.


Doesn't that confirm then that concerns over government tyranny and deterring such tyranny were part of the reason for its implementation? Are they not expressing concern over a large standing army being used as a force for despotism? (In their view). Are they not concerned that the Federal government is going to use armed force to seize their "property", the right to property being a fundamental right?

Quote:
I'm not saying early Americans had no concerns about potential tyranny, but modern Americans tend to over-state those concerns


They had just fought a war over what they perceived as tyranny and many were descendents of those who had utter disdain for Cromwell's regime. They also constructed a government whose nature was extremely concerned with balancing powers and prohibiting any branch or any state of assuming to much power. Perhaps the concerns in regards to daily life are overstated now, but in forming a government, those concerns about preventing tyranny were very real.

Quote:
The "People" being talked about here are a collective

Well, who would constitute "the people"? Back then of course, it would likely entail every able-bodied white male. Nowadays, that would probably mean anyone except felons and the mentally deficient/unstable.

I've always wondered why some conservative state doesn't pass a law declaring every adult part of "the militia". That would certainly raise quite the fuss.

If such a measure were adopted, then what restrictions could be placed on firearms ownership?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
madoka



Joined: 27 Mar 2008

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:
And duels were illegal.


FLAT OUT WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

Dude, that took a 30 second google search, you could have at least done that before making that claim.


It sounds like you're infringing on 12ax7's god-given right to make up facts and stats as it suits him. Then how's he supposed to sulk away in shame when he's exposed for being an argumentative buffoon over and over again?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Mon Jan 28, 2013 10:16 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:

Quote:
they were worried about the possibility of the Federal government using its defense powers to put a de facto end to slavery.


Doesn't that confirm then that concerns over government tyranny and deterring such tyranny were part of the reason for its implementation?


There is more to tyranny than the government doing something one dislikes. Quite the opposite, they were afraid (paranoid, really) that the Federal government could hinder or destroy their "peculiar institution" through exercise of its legitimate powers as described in the un-amended Constitution.

Steelrails wrote:
Are they not expressing concern over a large standing army being used as a force for despotism? (In their view). Are they not concerned that the Federal government is going to use armed force to seize their "property", the right to property being a fundamental right?


No, they were worried that the Federal government's un-amended defense powers could open them to slave revolts, as they described themselves.

Steelrails wrote:
Quote:
I'm not saying early Americans had no concerns about potential tyranny, but modern Americans tend to over-state those concerns


They had just fought a war over what they perceived as tyranny and many were descendents of those who had utter disdain for Cromwell's regime. They also constructed a government whose nature was extremely concerned with balancing powers and prohibiting any branch or any state of assuming to much power. Perhaps the concerns in regards to daily life are overstated now, but in forming a government, those concerns about preventing tyranny were very real.


One concern among many, but I shan't write an essay on the matter.

Steelrails wrote:
I've always wondered why some conservative state doesn't pass a law declaring every adult part of "the militia". That would certainly raise quite the fuss.

If such a measure were adopted, then what restrictions could be placed on firearms ownership?


Probably none, but then they get to deal with the duties of being said militia's regulator, and surely it would shame them when every gun crime reflected directly on the state.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:

FLAT OUT WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

Dude, that took a 30 second google search, you could have at least done that before making that claim.



So, it was frowned upon, but not illegal in the US...Gee, what a scoop you've got there. Your parents must be awfully proud of you. Wink

In all honesty, I had a feeling it was only made illegal in the US shortly before or after the Civil War, but I didn't bother to check because I wanted to see if someone would go, "Ah, ah! It was legal!" in order to divert attention away from the more important point I was making, which is that the Second Amendment was not written with individual rights in mind. But, you don't seem to disagree with me on that point, so hats off to you.


Last edited by 12ax7 on Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:06 am; edited 4 times in total
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 3:30 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

madoka wrote:
Steelrails wrote:

Quote:
And duels were illegal.


FLAT OUT WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

Dude, that took a 30 second google search, you could have at least done that before making that claim.


It sounds like you're infringing on 12ax7's god-given right to make up facts and stats as it suits him. Then how's he supposed to sulk away in shame when he's exposed for being an argumentative buffoon over and over again?


Have I got an investment proposal for you. It involves cloning cavemen, training them to play football and selling them to the NFL. We'll make a killing. Come on, what's a few hundred thousand dollars to you? We all know you're rich, you remind us every chance you get.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Steelrails



Joined: 12 Mar 2009
Location: Earth, Solar System

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:12 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

12ax7 wrote:
Steelrails wrote:

FLAT OUT WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

Dude, that took a 30 second google search, you could have at least done that before making that claim.



So, it was frowned upon, but not illegal in the US...Gee, what a scoop you've got there. Your parents must be awfully proud of you. Wink

In all honesty, I had a feeling it was only made illegal in the US shortly before or after the Civil War, but I didn't bother to check because I wanted to see if someone would go, "Ah, ah! It was legal!" in order to divert attention away from the more important point I was making, which is that the Second Amendment was not written with individual rights in mind. But, you don't seem to disagree with me on that point, so hats off to you.


Dude, stop lying to us and yourself.

P.S. I respect Fox because he researches things and bring good points to the table and would never claim to resort to such a measure if he was proven to be factually wrong. He would own it.

I think you had no intention of the sort as you claim. Playing such games adds nothing to the discussion. We should be able to discuss things on here without such nonsense.

If you really thought it might have been legal, you shouldn't have claimed that it was illegal.

You say "In all honesty" How's this? Be honest from the get go and state your opinion honestly. If you truly were being honest and cared about honesty, you would have honestly stated your opinion. You weren't being honest. Honest means that this explanatory paragraph would have been posted at the beginning.

Up until that post, say what you will, this has largely been a mature discussion. What you did there was neither mature, nor worthy of discourse.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
12ax7



Joined: 07 Nov 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 10:27 am    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
12ax7 wrote:
Steelrails wrote:

FLAT OUT WRONG.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Duel

Dude, that took a 30 second google search, you could have at least done that before making that claim.



So, it was frowned upon, but not illegal in the US...Gee, what a scoop you've got there. Your parents must be awfully proud of you. Wink

In all honesty, I had a feeling it was only made illegal in the US shortly before or after the Civil War, but I didn't bother to check because I wanted to see if someone would go, "Ah, ah! It was legal!" in order to divert attention away from the more important point I was making, which is that the Second Amendment was not written with individual rights in mind. But, you don't seem to disagree with me on that point, so hats off to you.


Dude, stop lying to us and yourself.

P.S. I respect Fox because he researches things and bring good points to the table and would never claim to resort to such a measure if he was proven to be factually wrong. He would own it.

I think you had no intention of the sort as you claim. Playing such games adds nothing to the discussion. We should be able to discuss things on here without such nonsense.

If you really thought it might have been legal, you shouldn't have claimed that it was illegal.

You say "In all honesty" How's this? Be honest from the get go and state your opinion honestly. If you truly were being honest and cared about honesty, you would have honestly stated your opinion. You weren't being honest. Honest means that this explanatory paragraph would have been posted at the beginning.

Up until that post, say what you will, this has largely been a mature discussion. What you did there was neither mature, nor worthy of discourse.


So, someone gives you an olive branch and you rip out the leaves and wipe your behind with them? Classy. I should have known to expect as much from you.

Well, that was the last time I will try to understand your comments, which most people will agree are neither cohesive nor coherent.

Please keep the avatar, it will make it easier for me to recognize when to browse down the page.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
comm



Joined: 22 Jun 2010

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:08 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
The "People" being talked about here are a collective, and the interests behind the demands for this Amendment were collective, and the Federal government already had no right to disarm people even without the Second Amendment, proving that there was more at work here than random people simply afraid the bad old Feds were going to grab their guns.

If they believed that the Constitution didn't provide for the Federal government to disarm the people (to the point that stating it as a right would be unnecessary), then isn't the individual right to bear arms inherent in the document itself? I still don't follow it, since "the people" seems to be pretty explicit. They could have used "the militias", "the States", or even "local governments" but "the people" really can't be construed as being any of those things.

madoka wrote:
It sounds like you're infringing on 12ax7's god-given right to make up facts and stats as it suits him.

And he seems rather perturbed by that infringement. Step back from the cage, he feels threatened and is liable to throw more bullsh**.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 4:35 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

comm wrote:

If they believed that the Constitution didn't provide for the Federal government to disarm the people (to the point that stating it as a right would be unnecessary), then isn't the individual right to bear arms inherent in the document itself?


Protection from disarmament by the Federal government is probably inherent in the document itself. I'm not sure I'd call this a positive right, though, given it wouldn't prohibit the state governments from disarming their people if they so wished. You'll remember that when you suggested a true firearms ban would require a constitutional amendment, I agreed, because it's true. It would be true even without the Second Amendment.

comm wrote:
I still don't follow it, since "the people" seems to be pretty explicit. They could have used "the militias", "the States", or even "local governments" but "the people" really can't be construed as being any of those things.


If the words of the men who pushed for this Amendment, backed by most relevant early American jurisprudence, and even Justice Stephens' reiteration of that notion of the Second Amendment being a collective right in his D.C. vs Heller dissent, all taken together aren't enough to convince you, then nothing I can say will do so. The radically individualistic interpretation of the Second Amendment is modern. Now maybe you agree with Kuros that in general we should be adaptivists when it comes to expanding rights, and moreover, feel such an adaptivistic reading should be specifically applied to the Second Amendment. That's fine, even reasonable as a general principle, but you can't pretend to be an orginalist while doing it.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 6:30 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Protection from disarmament by the Federal government is probably inherent in the document itself. I'm not sure I'd call this a positive right, though, given it wouldn't prohibit the state governments from disarming their people if they so wished.


State gov't's are prohibited. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendments to the States.

Quote:
The radically individualistic interpretation of the Second Amendment is modern.


Yes, but I don't think its radical. All the 2nd Amendment protects is the right to arm for self-defense in the home.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
catman



Joined: 18 Jul 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:13 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Steelrails wrote:
Not at all, because not all weapons are 'arms'. Clearly the concept was about citizens with their household firearms, not a mercenary force with a herd of war elephants.


Would an rpg be considered an arm or a weapon?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Fox



Joined: 04 Mar 2009

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 7:45 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Kuros wrote:
Fox wrote:
Protection from disarmament by the Federal government is probably inherent in the document itself. I'm not sure I'd call this a positive right, though, given it wouldn't prohibit the state governments from disarming their people if they so wished.


State gov't's are prohibited. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendments to the States.


I was under the impression that said decision relied upon the 14th Amendment, rather that the base text of the Constitution itself, which is to what I was referring. Am I incorrect about that?
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message
Kuros



Joined: 27 Apr 2004

PostPosted: Tue Jan 29, 2013 8:18 pm    Post subject: Reply with quote

Fox wrote:
Kuros wrote:
Fox wrote:
Protection from disarmament by the Federal government is probably inherent in the document itself. I'm not sure I'd call this a positive right, though, given it wouldn't prohibit the state governments from disarming their people if they so wished.


State gov't's are prohibited. McDonald v. Chicago (2010) incorporated the 2nd Amendments to the States.


I was under the impression that said decision relied upon the 14th Amendment, rather that the base text of the Constitution itself, which is to what I was referring. Am I incorrect about that?


Yes, it relied on the 14th. The 14th Amendment is the prism through which the rest of the Federal rights protect individuals against State action. Incorporation of the various rights, such as those contained in the 1st Amendment, occur through the 14th Amendment's Due Process Clause:

Quote:
nor shall any State deprive any person of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law


The Incorporation of the Bill of Rights

Quote:
The incorporation of the Bill of Rights (or incorporation for short) is the process by which American courts have applied portions of the U.S. Bill of Rights to the states. Prior to the 1890s, the Bill of Rights was held only to apply to the federal government. Under the incorporation doctrine, most provisions of the Bill of Rights now also apply to the state and local governments, by virtue of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment of the Constitution.

Prior to the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment and the development of the incorporation doctrine, the Supreme Court in 1833 held in Barron v. Baltimore that the Bill of Rights applied only to the federal, but not any state governments. Even years after the ratification of the Fourteenth Amendment, the Supreme Court in United States v. Cruikshank still held that the First and Second Amendment did not apply to state governments. However, beginning in the 1920s, a series of United States Supreme Court decisions interpreted the Fourteenth Amendment to "incorporate" most portions of the Bill of Rights, making these portions, for the first time, enforceable against the state governments.


You can see a list of relevant cases here. The 2nd Amendment is the laggard, which is a reminder how pro-firearm the various State governments and Constitutions are. And that brings me back to why the 2nd Amendment remains the obstacle with the most bark to bite as to firearm rights; many State Constitutions contain robust protections for gun owners.
Back to top
View user's profile Send private message AIM Address
Display posts from previous:   
Post new topic   Reply to topic    Korean Job Discussion Forums Forum Index -> Current Events Forum All times are GMT - 8 Hours
Goto page Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8  Next
Page 7 of 8

 
Jump to:  
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum


This page is maintained by the one and only Dave Sperling.
Contact Dave's ESL Cafe
Copyright © 2013 Dave Sperling. All Rights Reserved.

Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2002 phpBB Group

TEFL International Supports Dave's ESL Cafe
TEFL Courses, TESOL Course, English Teaching Jobs - TEFL International