Generational Theory Forum: The Fourth Turning Forum: A message board discussing generations and the Strauss Howe generational theory

(04-20-2017, 02:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Guns are no means of defense.

There are two basic and conflicting sets of values at work.  One suggests a large number of decent armed trained citizens can suppress bad guys.  The other suggests if their are fewer guns fewer people get hurt by guns.  Neither are free of logic.  Both schemes, when adopted by a local culture, have worked very well thank you. 

They are so much in conflict, though, that if an extreme partisan latches firmly into one scheme, the other seems at a deep values lock level to be irrational and doomed to failure.

While both schemes have worked, moving to either scheme and making either work at a national level seems implausible.  Ya kant get dayah from heah.  At this point the conversation isn't dominated by how to compromise, or how to move to one scheme or the other.  It's about extreme partisans dedicated to one perspective or the other declaring what seems to them obvious absolute truths but which seem from another perspective to be absurd meaningless statements.

From one perspective, if the bad guy has a gun, and nobody else has, the good guys are defenseless.  As the bad guys have so many ways of getting a gun, ways that aren't going to be blocked in this culture any time soon, the logic of the red perspective seems clear and obvious.  It is so clear and obvious that even a blue extreme partisan ought to be able to comprehend it, even if they can't bring themselves to agree.  To me, "guns are no means of defense" make as much sense as denying global warming or rejecting evolution.

This isn't to say that a red partisan declaring his love of firepower is precisely a winning argument, either.  It might fit with his experience of the real world, mesh with his values, and be deeply part of his way of life, but it isn't going to get positive reaction from a blue partisan.

(04-20-2017, 10:57 AM)X_4AD_84 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-20-2017, 09:40 AM)David Horn Wrote: [ -> ]This is nonsense.  The 2nd was there to allow common defense using weapons that were hard to load and poor in effect.  Yes, a militia was needed ... then.  Now, we have firepower that can kill easily in the hands of people with little if any training.  Sorry, but those are very much material issues.

For example, some economically challenged, woman of color, growing up in an urban area, raised by a single unwed mother, with little to no exposure to hunting / "gun culture" ... can actually have access to highly effective means of defense. I like it!

She needs the gun because ... oh yeah, all the guns out there.  Of course, she's more likely to shoot herself or one of her kids than actually defend herself, but carry on.

(04-20-2017, 03:23 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-20-2017, 02:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Guns are no means of defense.

There are two basic and conflicting sets of values at work.  One suggests a large number of decent armed trained citizens can suppress bad guys.  The other suggests if their are fewer guns fewer people get hurt by guns.  Neither are free of logic.  Both schemes, when adopted by a local culture, have worked very well thank you. 

They are so much in conflict, though, that if an extreme partisan latches firmly into one scheme, the other seems at a deep values lock level to be irrational and doomed to failure.

While both schemes have worked, moving to either scheme and making either work at a national level seems implausible.  Ya kant get dayah from heah.  At this point the conversation isn't dominated by how to compromise, or how to move to one scheme or the other.  It's about extreme partisans dedicated to one perspective or the other declaring what seems to them obvious absolute truths but which seem from another perspective to be absurd meaningless statements.

From one perspective, if the bad guy has a gun, and nobody else has, the good guys are defenseless.  As the bad guys have so many ways of getting a gun, ways that aren't going to be blocked in this culture any time soon, the logic of the red perspective seems clear and obvious.  It is so clear and obvious that even a blue extreme partisan ought to be able to comprehend it, even if they can't bring themselves to agree.  To me, "guns are no means of defense" make as much sense as denying global warming or rejecting evolution.

This isn't to say that a red partisan declaring his love of firepower is precisely a winning argument, either.  It might fit with his experience of the real world, mesh with his values, and be deeply part of his way of life, but it isn't going to get positive reaction from a blue partisan.

The question then is, why do the red partisans insist on foisting their gun (lack of) regimen on cities where guns are used to murder and steal from people, whereas the blue partisans are willing to compromise and let rural red folks have their shotguns that help them hunt or allegedly protect themselves and their crops from predator animals?

(04-21-2017, 11:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The question then is, why do the red partisans insist on foisting their gun (lack of) regimen on cities where guns are used to murder and steal from people, whereas the blue partisans are willing to compromise and let rural red folks have their shotguns that help them hunt or allegedly protect themselves and their crops from predator animals?

To many red partisans, the 2nd guarantees a right to self defense.  If you have been following my historical and legal notes over the years, you would understand quite well why they think that way.  That was simply the intent of the founding fathers.  For such partisans, giving up the ability to defend one's self is not a compromise.  It is the surrender of a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution.  Given that this is a question of values and survival for both sides, once one has chosen a side it is easy to see one perspective only and lose the ability to comprehend the other side.  I won't say I don't have opinions, but I will claim to comprehend why both sides feel so strongly.  Many are so values locked that they cannot comprehend opinions that conflict with their own.

Then there is the practical consideration of whether gun prohibition could be made to work.  As recent history has shown, it is far easier to make laws prohibiting guns than to enforce said laws.  There are well organized criminal cartels importing drugs.  That form of prohibition isn't working.  How would other forms of prohibition be expected to work better?

Now, if you want to pass laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons, the insane, terrorists, or similar folk, I'll go along with it so long as there is some form of due process.  One shouldn't lose guaranteed rights without due process.  I'll be dubious about the ability to enforce such laws, but if the blue states wish to make the attempt, I for one would not object.

(04-21-2017, 04:50 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(04-21-2017, 11:56 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The question then is, why do the red partisans insist on foisting their gun (lack of) regimen on cities where guns are used to murder and steal from people, whereas the blue partisans are willing to compromise and let rural red folks have their shotguns that help them hunt or allegedly protect themselves and their crops from predator animals?

To many red partisans, the 2nd guarantees a right to self defense.  If you have been following my historical and legal notes over the years, you would understand quite well why they think that way.  That was simply the intent of the founding fathers.  For such partisans, giving up the ability to defend one's self is not a compromise.  It is the surrender of a basic right guaranteed under the Constitution.  Given that this is a question of values and survival for both sides, once one has chosen a side it is easy to see one perspective only and lose the ability to comprehend the other side.  I won't say I don't have opinions, but I will claim to comprehend why both sides feel so strongly.  Many are so values locked that they cannot comprehend opinions that conflict with their own.

Then there is the practical consideration of whether gun prohibition could be made to work.  As recent history has shown, it is far easier to make laws prohibiting guns than to enforce said laws.  There are well organized criminal cartels importing drugs.  That form of prohibition isn't working.  How would other forms of prohibition be expected to work better?

Now, if you want to pass laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons, the insane, terrorists, or similar folk, I'll go along with it so long as there is some form of due process.  One shouldn't lose guaranteed rights without due process.  I'll be dubious about the ability to enforce such laws, but if the blue states wish to make the attempt, I for one would not object.

Severe sentencing enhancements for crimes committed using a firearm have been effective in reducing firearm use by criminals.

Here's a CNN piece written by a woman who grew up in India under the influence of Gandhi and non-violence.  Her native country is very strict into gun prohibition.  She grew up with it, accepted it, believed in it...

She works for CNN.  The NRA had a national convention a few doors down from CNN's Atlanta headquarters.  Naturally, she ended up reporting on it.  From Gandhi to guns: An Indian woman explores the NRA convention.

There is little there that is new. She encountered a number of people who thought on the issue very differently than she. She picked up on the vastly different ideas and values of the NRA's America. Through the article, she admits to not having thought of things the way the NRA convention attendees did, and that they had given her much to consider. I have a feeling she might well consider well and deeply, but that she isn't apt to move far from her home culture and values.

Anyway, an outside our culture perspective of one from a disarmed country.

Boomer globalists like Eric want nothing less than complete globalist domination, of course under their tutelage. Globalists will not be satisfied until all national borders and militaries are abolished and humans turned in general into feminized metrosexuals.

(04-30-2017, 02:32 AM)Cynic Hero Wrote: [ -> ]Boomer globalists like Eric want nothing less than complete globalist domination, of course under their tutelage. Globalists will not be satisfied until all national borders and militaries are abolished and humans turned in general into feminized metrosexuals.

Yes!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!   You're with me , man.   Fuck globalism, fuck the EU, fuck NATO, fuck the UN.  US out of NATO, US out of UN. Build the wall, yes, build the wall. I agree with that totally.  It's more humane than a mine field.  So either build the wall or lay the mines. 

So? What do you think of those moronic black bloccers?  I wanna send 'em all to San Quentin or Pelican Island where they can be bubba's bitches.  Btw, I think Soros is in dire need of a sniper's head shot. Absent that, confiscate that shitfuck's assets and give 'em to Appalachia.  Borders forever. Nationalism, uber Alles!  I think Great Britain should shut down the negotiations with Drunker and other EU rats and just leave, with no treaty or agreement.  Let the EU hang.   


La Pen, yeah, win, win, please and send the EU to hell. Fuck, fuck the EU, Die, die, EU, your time is done. Go to hell.. Same for NATO. Fuck you NATO.  Go to hell, NATO.   Same for the UN, World Bank, Import/Export bank/ Fuck y'all to hell and back.  I hate the "New World Order".  Just go down in flames!

UH, I disagree (man)

Quote:Boomer globalists like Eric want nothing less than complete globalist domination, of course under their tutelage. Globalists will not be satisfied until all national borders and militaries are abolished and humans turned in general into feminized metrosexuals.

Bring it on, man (fuck walls) (Soros for president)

(of course, domination won't then be necessary, and feminized metrosexuals have no interest in it; but it's beyond the scope of Cynic to notice contradictions in his spiels)

Quote:

Quote:Bob Butler 54 Online
Values Driven
*****
Posts: 952
Threads: 4
Joined: May 2016
#31 Today, 12:53 AM
(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
If the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications, then that would indicate that those qualifications were important. You can't claim originalism, and oppose going against text, and then refer to state constitutions of the 1780s. They aren't part of the constitution.

I doubt very much that the 2nd is the only amendment with qualifications. I know it is not the only right with a justification clause. It should be interpreted the same as every other right written with a justification clause. The Jim Crow / blue wet dream interpretation of the 2nd is entirely inconsistent with how other rights with a justification clause are interpreted.

I don't know another USA constitutional amendment that has a justification/qualification clause; not the bill of rights anyway.

Quote:

Quote:(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

The recent supreme court cases reestablishing an individual right is not originalism except in the sense that there has been a return to the original meaning. There is lots of room to debate the statistics of what results from various types of gun prohibition. There is no room to debate the meaning of the text, the intent of the authors, the precedents and scholarship. Those advocating the blue wet dreams deliberately keep themselves ignorant of the history of gun policy.

Gun control is not prohibition. That is just more sloganeering like the libertarian Republicans engage in. There's lots of room for debating the meaning of the text. The pre-Heller meaning goes back to the early days of the Republic. Only Scalia has changed it, as a result of the temporary takeover of the USA by right-wing extremism since 1980, courtesy of the charming actor.

Quote:

Quote:(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
The blue wet dream is merely to go back before the right-wing extremist appointed by the 3T charming actor and his faulty decision.

The blue wet dream is a mistaken attempt to cling to the absolutely rotten Jim Crow efforts to deny blacks the benefits of the Bill of Rights. It wasn't just the 2nd Amendment that was effectively neutered by the Jim Crow supreme court. The entire Bill of Rights was effectively neutralized. The gun policy debate is old. It has been a persistent part of our history. Your claim that it started recently shows a tremendous ignorance.

I wouldn't doubt that there have been debates on this subject. That would be rather presumptuous of me. But no, qualifying the 2nd Amendment, which is the least necessary and most outdated amendment in our constitution, does not neutralize the bill of rights.

Quote:[quote]
(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
Another point to insert: it is a false myth that we have freedom of speech in this country. We don't at all.

Huh? Not part of this discussion. If you want to start on that elsewhere... What is it you want to say that you believe you can't?

It could not be more relevant. If you say the right to bear arms has no qualification or limit, then that would apply to any other right stated in our constitution.

Bosses, profit and non-profit, have many times seriously infringed on my freedom of speech. I took great offense at this, and still do. But I don't recall any government infringing it.

Quote:[quote]
(Yesterday, 11:18 PM)Eric the Green Wrote:
I don't recall the Supreme Court throwing out libel and obscenity laws. The FCC still censors broadcasts. Nor directing bosses and leaders of non-profits not to fire or punish people for saying the wrong things or "airing dirty linen in public."

[quote]
Since the time of Justice Oliver Wendell Holmes, there has been a broad principle that a right does not grant one the ability to harm others. ("Your right to wave your fist around ends where my nose begins." "You don't have a right to cry 'fire' in a crowded theater.") Libel and obscenity are considered to be harmful to others, thus freedom of speech does not enable them. Shooting people also causes harm to others, and the 2nd Amendment does not enable that. Owning and carrying a gun (keeping and bearing arms) does not harm others, thus the libel and obscenity comparison is generally not applicable.

Carrying guns seriously infringes on peoples' rights, especially freedom of speech, since it imposes fear and the threat of severe violence on others. The PBS doc about UT, covering the 50th anniversary of the mass shooting there, showed this. Allowing the mentally ill and criminals to have guns is a serious threat to our freedom and safety, yet that is what gun advocates have successfully imposed upon us. And since anyone at any time can go crazy or break the law, anyone carrying a gun is a serious threat to public safety. My wet dream of no-one anywhere having guns may be a long-term vision, and may never happen in the USA. But I still think it's the best ideal to have. I recognize the need to compromise my ideal.

And if there are limits to free speech because of potential harm, then surely people carrying weapons, even military weapons, that can in a second kill anyone, constitutes potential harm and should be limited. The more severe the limit, the better; I say. Americans are the only people in the world with this male-macho inadequacy-caused gun obsession. And we pay a high price for this disease.

Quote:Now, if you want to pass laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons, the insane, terrorists, or similar folk, I'll go along with it so long as there is some form of due process. One shouldn't lose guaranteed rights without due process. I'll be dubious about the ability to enforce such laws, but if the blue states wish to make the attempt, I for one would not object.

This quote of yours makes more sense to me, obviously. Yes, I don't disagree. The best compromise we can get, in a country with a gun tradition (i.e. obsession), is worth trying for.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know another USA constitutional amendment that has a justification/qualification clause; not the bill of rights anyway.

Your ignorance is not because I have not tried to educate you.  Again, I refer you to The Commonplace Second Amendment.  If you were to read it, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.  We could discuss how to interpret justification phrases intelligently.  Over the years, I have posted a link to The Commonplace Second Amendment many times.  It is obvious that you have never read it.  It might be neat if you did.  It makes a good solid case, but might not be slam dunk.  Go on.  Step up to the plate.  Do a little research on justification clauses so you know what you are talking about.  It's a fairly short paper.  It's not too deep in legalese.  Try it.  I dare you.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

Umm...  you do realize that the phrase 'well regulated militia' is in the justification clause?  Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.  It would be nice to have an intelligent conversation.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Gun control is not prohibition. That is just more sloganeering like the libertarian Republicans engage in. There's lots of room for debating the meaning of the text. The pre-Heller meaning goes back to the early days of the Republic. Only Scalia has changed it, as a result of the temporary takeover of the USA by right-wing extremism since 1980, courtesy of the charming actor.

Some of the time we can get together and propose steps that can be taken to remove guns from classes of people who really shouldn't have them: felons, the insane, perhaps terrorists.  There are some loopholes in the purchasing process and background checks that should really be closed.  These are not total prohibitions.  We can often cheerfully agree on many such things.

Once in a while you go on rants where you want to take away weapons from law abiding citizens.  This would be prohibition.  That's when I'll step up and disagree.  I'll use 'prohibition' accurately and without apology.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't doubt that there have been debates on this subject. That would be rather presumptuous of me. But no, qualifying the 2nd Amendment, which is the least necessary and most outdated amendment in our constitution, does not neutralize the bill of rights.

Yes, it is very presumptuous of you.  Whether the 2nd is the most outdated amendment is a personal opinion, and many disagree with you.  Simply saying so is not sufficient.

The Jim Crow supreme court did neutralize most of the Bill of Rights.  Thurgood Marshall and his NAACP legal team spent a lot of time in the mid 1900s restoring the Bill of Rights.  The NAACP did not see it as their place to finish the job, to restore the 2nd as well.  That only happened more recently, but replacing the Jim Crow precedents with a modern restoration of the original meaning uses the same flavor of legal theory whether applied by the NAACP or the NRA.

Race and the Bill of Rights have been intertwined for centuries.  If you don't understand that the Jim Crow supreme court deliberately sought to deny Bill of Rights protection to blacks, and thus dissolved Bill of Rights protection to everybody, you're not going to truly understand the history and nature of the gun policy discussion

Sorry, I can't fix you lack of knowledge of history with one paper.  I'd start with The Commonplace Second Amendment.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Carrying guns seriously infringes on peoples' rights, especially freedom of speech, since it imposes fear and the threat of severe violence on others. The PBS doc about UT, covering the 50th anniversary of the mass shooting there, showed this. Allowing the mentally ill and criminals to have guns is a serious threat to our freedom and safety, yet that is what gun advocates have successfully imposed upon us. And since anyone at any time can go crazy or break the law, anyone carrying a gun is a serious threat to public safety. My wet dream of no-one anywhere having guns may be a long-term vision, and may never happen in the USA. But I still think it's the best ideal to have. I recognize the need to compromise my ideal.

And if there are limits to free speech because of potential harm, then surely people carrying weapons, even military weapons, that can in a second kill anyone, constitutes potential harm and should be limited. The more severe the limit, the better; I say. Americans are the only people in the world with this male-macho inadequacy-caused gun obsession. And we pay a high price for this disease.

There are no limits to speech because of potential harm.  You have to actually cause harm by libeling someone or using obscenity.  Similarly, owning or carrying a firearm does not cause harm.  You actually have to shoot somebody.  Would you write laws to silence everyone who might potentially libel or swear?  Would you force repeat offenders to wear gags, to silence them?  I would hope not.  The tradition is to punish those who actually cause harm not to prevent law abiding citizens from speaking.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

I Wrote:Now, if you want to pass laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons, the insane, terrorists, or similar folk, I'll go along with it so long as there is some form of due process.  One shouldn't lose guaranteed rights without due process.  I'll be dubious about the ability to enforce such laws, but if the blue states wish to make the attempt, I for one would not object.

This quote of yours makes more sense to me, obviously. Yes, I don't disagree. The best compromise we can get, in a country with a gun tradition (i.e. obsession), is worth trying for.

We quite often end our exchanges in this sort of place.  I figure we can let things rest here for a time before you go back to advocating all out prohibition.

Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.

(05-16-2017, 03:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>

Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.

Bob\s reference Wrote:XIV.  Proportional Punishments
              All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense, the true design of all punishment being to reform, not to exterminate, mankind. 97
              All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the offense.  No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery and the like, which they do to those of murder and treason; where the same undistinguished severity is exerted against all offenses; the people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most flagrant with as little compunction as they do those of the lightest dye:  For the same reason a multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and unjust.  The true design of all punishment being to reform, not to exterminate, mankind. 98

I just read the link.  The War on Drugs needs to be ruled to be unconstitutional.     The whole enterprise reeks of not proportional penalties.  So,.. Yeah,  FUCK YOU RICHARD NIXON.  I hope that bastard is roasting in hell. Bob is also correct, wrt 2nd amendment. Thanks Bob, for the education, man. So, Eric, do ya think Nixon should burn forever in Hell?

(05-16-2017, 04:11 PM)Ragnarök_62 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2017, 03:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]<snip>

Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.

Bob\s reference Wrote:XIV.  Proportional Punishments
              All penalties shall be proportioned to the nature of the offense, the true design of all punishment being to reform, not to exterminate, mankind. 97
              All penalties ought to be proportioned to the nature of the offense.  No wise legislature will affix the same punishment to the crimes of theft, forgery and the like, which they do to those of murder and treason; where the same undistinguished severity is exerted against all offenses; the people are led to forget the real distinction in the crimes themselves, and to commit the most flagrant with as little compunction as they do those of the lightest dye:  For the same reason a multitude of sanguinary laws is both impolitic and unjust.  The true design of all punishment being to reform, not to exterminate, mankind. 98

I just read the link.  The War on Drugs needs to be ruled to be unconstitutional.     The whole enterprise reeks of not proportional penalties.  So,.. Yeah,  FUCK YOU RICHARD NIXON.  I hope that bastard is roasting in hell. Bob is also correct, wrt 2nd amendment. Thanks Bob, for the education, man. So, Eric, do ya think Nixon should burn forever in Hell?

I imagine he's having to do some serious adjustments. Perhaps he has already reincarnated, and might be dealing with his karma. Who knows? That's probably as serious as I would go, seeing as I don't really believe in that kind of "hell." Oh well!

(05-16-2017, 03:28 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know another USA constitutional amendment that has a justification/qualification clause; not the bill of rights anyway.

Your ignorance is not because I have not tried to educate you.  Again, I refer you to The Commonplace Second Amendment.  If you were to read it, you would know exactly what I'm talking about.  We could discuss how to interpret justification phrases intelligently.  Over the years, I have posted a link to The Commonplace Second Amendment many times.  It is obvious that you have never read it.  It might be neat if you did.  It makes a good solid case, but might not be slam dunk.  Go on.  Step up to the plate.  Do a little research on justification clauses so you know what you are talking about.  It's a fairly short paper.  It's not too deep in legalese.  Try it.  I dare you.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Originalism of the Scalia/Gorsuch type does not work. The world changes, and the constitution must be interpreted in a flexible-enough way to adapt. Guns are not the same as they were in 1787. And remember, the phrase "well-regulated" is built in to the 2nd. Whatever militia has a right to bear arms, it must be well-regulated. That means gun control, and qualifications on which guns the militia members have a right to bear.

Umm...  you do realize that the phrase 'well regulated militia' is in the justification clause?  Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.  It would be nice to have an intelligent conversation.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Gun control is not prohibition. That is just more sloganeering like the libertarian Republicans engage in. There's lots of room for debating the meaning of the text. The pre-Heller meaning goes back to the early days of the Republic. Only Scalia has changed it, as a result of the temporary takeover of the USA by right-wing extremism since 1980, courtesy of the charming actor.

Some of the time we can get together and propose steps that can be taken to remove guns from classes of people who really shouldn't have them: felons, the insane, perhaps terrorists.  There are some loopholes in the purchasing process and background checks that should really be closed.  These are not total prohibitions.  We can often cheerfully agree on many such things.

Once in a while you go on rants where you want to take away weapons from law abiding citizens.  This would be prohibition.  That's when I'll step up and disagree.  I'll use 'prohibition' accurately and without apology.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I wouldn't doubt that there have been debates on this subject. That would be rather presumptuous of me. But no, qualifying the 2nd Amendment, which is the least necessary and most outdated amendment in our constitution, does not neutralize the bill of rights.

Yes, it is very presumptuous of you.  Whether the 2nd is the most outdated amendment is a personal opinion, and many disagree with you.  Simply saying so is not sufficient.

The Jim Crow supreme court did neutralize most of the Bill of Rights.  Thurgood Marshall and his NAACP legal team spent a lot of time in the mid 1900s restoring the Bill of Rights.  The NAACP did not see it as their place to finish the job, to restore the 2nd as well.  That only happened more recently, but replacing the Jim Crow precedents with a modern restoration of the original meaning uses the same flavor of legal theory whether applied by the NAACP or the NRA.

Race and the Bill of Rights have been intertwined for centuries.  If you don't understand that the Jim Crow supreme court deliberately sought to deny Bill of Rights protection to blacks, and thus dissolved Bill of Rights protection to everybody, you're not going to truly understand the history and nature of the gun policy discussion

Sorry, I can't fix you lack of knowledge of history with one paper.  I'd start with The Commonplace Second Amendment.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]Carrying guns seriously infringes on peoples' rights, especially freedom of speech, since it imposes fear and the threat of severe violence on others. The PBS doc about UT, covering the 50th anniversary of the mass shooting there, showed this. Allowing the mentally ill and criminals to have guns is a serious threat to our freedom and safety, yet that is what gun advocates have successfully imposed upon us. And since anyone at any time can go crazy or break the law, anyone carrying a gun is a serious threat to public safety. My wet dream of no-one anywhere having guns may be a long-term vision, and may never happen in the USA. But I still think it's the best ideal to have. I recognize the need to compromise my ideal.

And if there are limits to free speech because of potential harm, then surely people carrying weapons, even military weapons, that can in a second kill anyone, constitutes potential harm and should be limited. The more severe the limit, the better; I say. Americans are the only people in the world with this male-macho inadequacy-caused gun obsession. And we pay a high price for this disease.

There are no limits to speech because of potential harm.  You have to actually cause harm by libeling someone or using obscenity.  Similarly, owning or carrying a firearm does not cause harm.  You actually have to shoot somebody.  Would you write laws to silence everyone who might potentially libel or swear?  Would you force repeat offenders to wear gags, to silence them?  I would hope not.  The tradition is to punish those who actually cause harm not to prevent law abiding citizens from speaking.

(05-16-2017, 02:14 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]

I Wrote:Now, if you want to pass laws prohibiting gun ownership by felons, the insane, terrorists, or similar folk, I'll go along with it so long as there is some form of due process.  One shouldn't lose guaranteed rights without due process.  I'll be dubious about the ability to enforce such laws, but if the blue states wish to make the attempt, I for one would not object.

This quote of yours makes more sense to me, obviously. Yes, I don't disagree. The best compromise we can get, in a country with a gun tradition (i.e. obsession), is worth trying for.

We quite often end our exchanges in this sort of place.  I figure we can let things rest here for a time before you go back to advocating all out prohibition.

Again, I'd recommend The Commonplace Second Amendment.

I don't know about me reading that. Maybe. I think my other points stand. But yes, we can rest there. Remember my advocacy of all-out prohibition is a "wet dream" unlikely to be realized in my lifetime, or even the lifetime of the USA, however long that may be (it could end during this 4T, we can't be sure). And I did not advocate imposing it by force; that would be as violent as guns are. Violently taking away guns from everybody is not viable. There would have to be consensus (and then force applied to the few violators, if any). But, you never know when I might bring up my dream again "I have a dream, that one day..."

(05-16-2017, 10:32 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I don't know about me reading that.  (The Commonplace Second Amendment.) Maybe. I think my other points stand. But yes, we can rest there. Remember my advocacy of all-out prohibition is a "wet dream" unlikely to be realized in my lifetime, or even the lifetime of the USA, however long that may be (it could end during this 4T, we can't be sure). And I did not advocate imposing it by force; that would be as violent as guns are. Violently taking away guns from everybody is not viable. There would have to be consensus (and then force applied to the few violators, if any). But, you never know when I might bring up my dream again    "I have a dream, that one day..."

I'd like to step back from you in particular, blue gun control advocates in general, and talk a bit about how extreme partisans maintain their absurd opinions.  In this case, there is an absolute refusal to gain information that you suspect you don't want to know.  It's straight up willful ignorance.  Over and over you will bring up the justification phrase aspect of the Jim Crow interpretation, yet you refuse to touch the short clear academic paper which examines how to interpret justification phrases.

There are some differences between worldviews that do or should reside in the realm of logic and fact.  I'll mention conservatives examining climate science and fundamentalists examining evolutionary biology as other examples where folk with strong political or religious world views can let fact and science roll off them like water off a duck.  It's not unique to one faction or one issue.

For a while I've been considering an essay or three on how to recognize one's own values lock.  It is generally fairly obvious when someone with opposing values has departed reality.  It's harder to recognize it in one's self.  An absolute unwillingness to even read an opposing point of view might be one clue?  It is obvious that extreme partisans do indeed lock into their perspectives.  What are the symptoms?  Is is possible to recognize when one is shutting down one's mind?

Anyway, many a blue daydreamer will ride the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd to the death without reading, acknowledging or making intelligent comments on The Commonplace Second Amendment.  It would be interesting for someone from the blue side to actually read it and start an educated intelligent discussion.  Until they do, all I can do when the Jim Crow interpretation is repeated again is to put my foot down and paraphrase the paper.

On the other hand, you are allowed to dream.  So are the NRA people.  For the moment the values of the country are too divided to go far beyond daydreams.

I disagree that the justification phrase is a meaningless add on. You can throw different opinions at me and claim I am ignorant if I disagree. But it was established law to regard it as a qualification up until the charming actor's agent made his extreme, right-wing decision.

(05-17-2017, 02:57 AM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]I disagree that the justification phrase is a meaningless add on. You can throw different opinions at me and claim I am ignorant if I disagree. But it was established law to regard it as a qualification up until the charming actor's agent made his extreme, right-wing decision.

Yes, the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd was well establish from the end of the Reconstruction until recently.  The Jim Crow interpretation was very different from what was written and what was implemented in colonial and revolutionary times.

Reagan wasn't the origin of the 'standard model' of an individual right.  It began in academia.  One of the early articles was David Hardy's 1974 article in the Chicago-Kent Law Review, “Of Arms and the Law.”  It jumped from law review articles to the court rooms in 1999 when Judge Sam Cummings wrote the US v Emerson decision.  While Reagan was among many public figures working the common press, the real action was in the legal specialty press from 1974 through 1999.  After the Emerson decision, the academic work started getting recognized by the courts.

You seem to be asserting that all opinions are of equal merit. Certainly, in some fields such as religion or philosophy, this is arguably the case. If there are conflicts in these areas, all one can do is wave your hands and stand on conviction.

The interpretation of justification clauses is not such a case. You can look up all rights with such clauses, see how they have been interpreted, and judge whether the usual methods of interpretation make sense. A professional did just that. The Jim Crow interpretation is in direct conflict with how the US handles such clauses, and looking at the examples given it is obvious that you want the usual interpretation to stand.

The only thing that counts is how the Supreme Court has ruled on the question of whether the justification clause affects the right to bear arms. Anything else is irrelevant to actual US law. Your sarcasm directed towards me is also not relevant to the question, so I won't deal with it.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comm...-amendment

As far as I can tell, there was no ruling before Reconstruction. I'm not sure. But that ruling stood for over 100 years until the right-wing extremists took over our government in 1980. Their takeover bore fruit in the Heller decision.

(05-18-2017, 02:58 PM)Eric the Green Wrote: [ -> ]The only thing that counts is how the Supreme Court has ruled on the question of whether the justification clause affects the right to bear arms. Anything else is irrelevant to actual US law. Your sarcasm directed towards me is also not relevant to the question, so I won't deal with it.

http://www.newyorker.com/news/daily-comm...-amendment

As far as I can tell, there was no ruling before Reconstruction. I'm not sure. But that ruling stood for over 100 years until the right-wing extremists took over our government in 1980. Their takeover bore fruit in the Heller decision.

There were a few 2nd Amendment Supreme Court cases before Jim Crow, but they didn't touch on the collective (Jim Crow) vs individual rights (standard model) question.  This is in large part as the notion of a 'collective right' was invented at the time of Jim Crow.

As far as I've been able to research, there is no such thing as a collective right in Anglo-American law, with the sole exception of the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd.

The New Yorker article is spun.  It's facts are more or less correct, but selected.  It is a political article written by a political magazine with an urban perspective.  The 'standard model' articles favoring an individual rights started in academic circles before the political movement took off with the NRA and Republicans.  The political advocates weren't aware of the technical details of the law until the professors started digging into it.  Only after the law was reexamined did the political folk discover they had an issue they could run with.  The New Yorker article pushes the notion that the academic articles and courts were moved by money and political pressure more than the law or the values of colonial and revolutionary times, the true meanings of the words.  That's a fanciful faux talking point.  I don't respect it.  There were Democrats with money pushing too.  There was political pressure applied in both directions.  It's just that academic articles are peer reviewed.  Collective right (Jim Crow) papers didn't get through the peer review.

What I consider important is that they many individual right (standard model) articles were not countered successfully in the academic press.  This is because they can't be countered.  People who tried would be made to look silly.  There were many standard model academic papers referenced in the Heller decision, but little to nothing quoted backing up the collective interpretation.  The academic articles are quite persuasive, at least if one is willing to read them.

I guess, given you aren't willing to read academic research,  I’ll try another summary of Commonplace.

Justification phrase:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

Implementation phrase:  “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I have several questions I like to ask of the meaning of the text.

1. How important did the founding fathers consider the militia?
   
2. It is the right of who to keep and bear arms?
   
3. Can this right be infringed, limited in any way?
   

There are many justification phrases found in the state constitutions of the time.  They are there to get voters and legislators to vote in favor.

There is a conflict between “the militia” being spoken of in the justification phrase, but “the people” being given the right in the implementation phrase.  This is common in rights with a justification phrase.  There is commonly a specific group of people who obviously (in the wisdom of the time) need the right, but the right is given to everybody.  Rights were seen as granted by God, thus the implementation phrase was commonly more inclusive than the justification.

“The people” is a term of art used in many federal and state constitutions.  In every right save the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd, it is interpreted as meaning everybody, or at least all citizens.

The justification phrase is never read as a limitation, save in the Jim Crow interpretation of the 2nd.  Rights exist to a great extent to limit the power of the government over the people.  Thus, the courts are not given latitude to decide that if the justification phrase no longer applies, the right goes away.

The justification phrase can provide some insight over how to interpret the implementation.  If one’s interpretation of the implementation phrase makes it impossible to achieve the justification phrase’s goal, one is interpreting the implementation phrase wrong.  Thus, if one’s interpretation of the implementation phrase makes it impossible for the common man to own and carry the weapons needed to participate in the militia, one is very much on the wrong track.

But the most interesting part of the article isn’t the principles I reviewed above.  It’s what happens when you apply the Jim Crow methods of interpreting the justification phrase to other rights written with justification phrases.

As legislators need freedom of speech to perform their work, everybody has free speech.  Does this mean individuals do not have free speech unless they are working legislation?

As publishers require freedom of the press to protect democracy, everybody has freedom of the press.  Does this imply the government can censor the writings of non-publishers?  If the government decides freedom of the press for publishers no longer protects democracy, does the right go away?

As knowledge of the local area is key to a successful trial, all trials shall be held in the county where the crime was committed.  Does this mean that improved communications and news coverage makes the need to hold local trials obsolete?  Trials can be held anywhere?  If someone decides that an objective ignorance of the crime gives the defendant a fairer trial, can the law be ignored?

The major use of a justification phrase by a judge trying to interpret law is that one should assume that the authors believed in that justification.  Any interpretation of the law must be made under the assumption that the justification phrase is true.  The implementation phrase interpretation must yield a result consistent with the justification.  That’s the major point made in how to interpret justification phrases, and this point is pressed home by the examples given.

If one is trying to work under the assumption that the justification phrase is wrong, that the authors of the law were mistaken when they wrote down a justification, one is not going to interpret the implementation phrase in the way intended by the authors.  If one assumes that in fact a well regulated militia is no longer necessary for a free state, you might well be right, but you aren’t going to interpret the amendment as the authors intended.

Is it the job of a judge to honestly interpret what the authors intended. Alternately, an activist judge can might throw the law out the window if his modern values don’t mesh with the values of the authors.  This is the difference between enforcing the law and legislating from the bench.

Just adding a few points to my prior note.

(05-18-2017, 04:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]Justification phrase:  A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State,”

Implementation phrase:  “the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.”

I have several questions I like to ask of the meaning of the text.

1. How important did the founding fathers consider the militia?
   
2. It is the right of who to keep and bear arms?
   
3. Can this right be infringed, limited in any way?
   

To me, the answer to those questions seem so obvious that I seldom provide answers.  Thing is, for some, reading comprehension is harder that parroting one's values.  Some folks values are so absolutely locked in that they lose their ability to read.  To sate the obvious...

1. The founders considered the militia necessary.
   
2. It is the right of the people to keep and bear Arms.
   
3. The right to keep and bear Arms should not be infringed.
   

The New Yorker article claims the Second Amendment is ungrammatical and obscure.  It does not seem so to me.  It would only seem ungrammatical and obscure if one is value locked into an incorrect interpretation of what the authors intended to convey.  Does anyone wish to claim the above three answers are not clearly obvious from the text?  If so, even if you are warned that you are under blatant values lock, can you still deny that the standard model meaning of the text is correct?

One example of a justification phrase preceding a right looks almost too plausible.  It's not directly related to gun policy, but it shows the dangers of the Jim Crow style of interpreting justification phrases.

(05-18-2017, 04:13 PM)Bob Butler 54 Wrote: [ -> ]As publishers require freedom of the press to protect democracy, everybody has freedom of the press.  Does this imply the government can censor the writings of non-publishers?  If the government decides freedom of the press for publishers no longer protects democracy, does the right go away?

These days, false news is becoming an issue.  I'm not sure the press hasn't spun more or out and out lied more in the past, but false news is becoming news in and of itself.

Is it possible that the ability to spew false news has become a danger to democracy?  Under Justice Holmes' principle that if you are doing harm, a right does not protect you, even without using the Jim Crow method of interpretation, is it arguable that freedom of the press is not absolute and should be not absolute?

Thus far, the notion that political false news remains free speech, no matter that it does harm, seems to be holding up.  It just seems to me that protecting political free speech is held with a higher regard than Justice Holmes's principle that rights do not protect those who cause harm.

Which is likely a good thing.  I certainly don't trust the government to institute a policy of editing false news.  I doubt very much they could censor without spin.  They would go after false new that hurts them while letting favorable false news stand.