arma virumque cano (et alia)
There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. “Nearly every idea in BofR comes with restrictions and limitations.” #2A #gunsense http://t.co/Flqxs2vZJK— Joe Quint (@ittakesus) July 9, 2015
There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. “Nearly every idea in BofR comes with restrictions and limitations.” #2A #gunsense http://t.co/Flqxs2vZJK
"There Are No ‘Absolute’ Rights. “Nearly every idea in BofR comes with restrictions and limitations.” Everyone who advocates for their particular freedom that they hold dear rail against any further limitation, be it the First, the Fourth, or the Second. And while he comments on the limitations of the other amendments, he, of course, thinks there needs to be more restrictions on the Second. No surprise there. Yes, there are already lots of limitations on the Second Amendment in the form of literally thousands of laws ranging from federal down to local laws. He just wants a couple more. And then a couple of more after that I imagine. And of course, like Mike, the author waits impatiently for the majority to swing the right way so that hopefully Heller can be reversed. Of course, much to his dismay I'm thinking, individual rights, including gun rights has been steadily expanding. For example, in just this year, Kansas and Maine passed legislation enacting Constitutional carry. And Puerto Rico went Constitutional carry through the courts. And this expansion of rights at a state level doesn't limit itself to this one issue. And when elected officials don't represent the wishes of the voters, out they go, be it in regular elections, or in recall elections as seen in Colorado, and more recently in Oregon,"A move to recall Democratic House Majority Leader Val Hoyle over issues to include passage of gun control legislation, halted this week as the lawmaker announced she was stepping down."http://www.guns.com/2015/07/09/oregon-recall-effort-suspended-as-house-leader-steps-down/ And it appears that it isn't stopping with just the one person,"Although the effort against Hoyle may be over, a separate effort to show both Rep. Susan McLain and Sen. Chuck Riley the door over SB941 and other issues is proceeding.Oregonians for Social Accountability, the group behind the recall have to collect more than 6,200 signatures for Riley and 2,800 for McLain. Once triggered, the elected official can resign or choose to hold a special election where voters will vote to recall the official. If they are recalled county commissioners will appoint a replacement from the same political party." The voters are having their say, and they aren't saying what the author is hoping for.
If the voters are so pro gun, how did the anti gun politicians get elected in the first place?
Mike's answer to that when I bring up anti gun politicians losing their jobs is that there were likely other issues besides guns that led to their loss. And that is possibly true. As for current pro-gun politicians, the tide seems to be going in the other direction as evidenced by the change in power in the Colorado legislature during the midterm elections. And we certainly haven't heard of many pro-gun politicians being recalled by the voters. What does that tell you?
Nothing, except your theory that politicians win, or not, because of the gun issue, is bogus.
"Nothing, except your theory that politicians win, or not, because of the gun issue, is bogus."Then pray tell Anon, why are expansions of gun rights and the election of politicians who favor of gun rights is always attributed to the evil "gun lobby" And on the other side, passage of gun restrictions and the election of anti gun politicians is hailed as a victory by the gun control lobby. If money spent by these two groups doesn't effect the outcome then why do these presumably smart people spend so much money to affect an election?
Beacuse it's political, not fact based. The NRA and gun loons made it political and dumped tons of money to the NRA which bought politicians. Your childish refusal to accept money alone can by politicians votes, is laughable.
" The NRA and gun loons made it political and dumped tons of money to the NRA which bought politicians. Your childish refusal to accept money alone can by politicians votes, is laughable."Anon, I'm not denying the concept of politicians being willing to vote a certain way in return for money. However, if the politician wanders too far from what the voters expect from him, no amount of money will buy him those votes on Election Day. And at the end of Election Day, whatever money they got from the lobbyists will just end up as a severance package for an unemployed politician.
"Anon, I'm not denying the concept of politicians being willing to vote a certain way in return for money."That's funny, you sure have before, but leave it to a kill crazy dishonest gun loon to be a total hypocrite. Next lie SS............"no amount of money will buy him those votes on Election Day."That's been proven wrong so many times I wonder if you are a comedian, or just a dishonest kill crazy gun loon, but I know the answer to that about you.
Anon, you have but to look at recent elections in which the gun control lobby outspent the NRA with little success and you'll see that a voter who already has a position on an issue can't be bought. And they are the ones who decide if a politician keeps his job.
A vote can not be bought? WOW, you are dumber than I thought.
I certainly haven't seen any offers of cash for votes on Election Day. Here's a good test, is there any amount of money that the evil NRA could pay you to vote for a pro-gun candidate?
Shall Not Be Infringed"Shall not be infringed," "Shall not be infringed"--where have I heard that before? Oh, yeah--right there in the Bill of Rights. The only right given that level of protection within that document. Of course, lying fanatics tend to see it differently (or at least claim to see it differently).
Of course they were talking about arming militias, which meant individuals. Since we have had a standing army for over 200 years, it's no longer valid.
I love it--Mr. Bravely Anonymous figures he can just pick and choose which parts of the Constitution are still "valid," or not. Pure comedic gold, O Brave One.
It's valid until it is repealed. Take your "we have had a standing army for over 200 years" argument up with the Federal and State governments to begin the process of amending the constitution. But no- there is no built-in clause that says "the right is no longer valid if..."
It's invalid because of its own words clearly defined by its authors. The conditions no longer exist, by which the authors definitions defined it, not yours. Unlike you, my position doesn't change no matter which name I use.
Everyone (almost), even Scalia, admits there are valid infringements - but not Kurt.
"It's invalid because of its own words clearly defined by its authors. The conditions no longer exist, by which the authors definitions defined it, not yours."Anon, I suggest you look at the most recent decision by SCOTUS to see that the Second is still valid. Key word, Heller.
“The conditions no longer exist, by which the authors definitions defined it, not yours.”The conditions, huh? …being necessary to the security of a free state…Because we are no longer a “free state”? Once we’ve lost some freedom, the rest can go too? That condition? Good thinking, comrade.But again, even if you were right, who decides that “the conditions no longer exist”. The amendment is pretty short, and does not detail the thresholds for when this phantom “auto repeal” takes place. Mike just posted a picture today, of what he called “the militia”, so they seem to still exist in some capacity. What you’d have to do is go through the amending process- like I said.
Hey comrade, we have a standing military and have had for a couple of hundred years, it is no longer necessary for individuals to be armed and ready to protect the security of a free State. If that is your definition then I would support all military personnel the right to own and bear arms. I suggest you go to the authors of the 2nd amendment and have them tell you what they meant in the 2nd amendment, it is in writing by the authors of the amendment.
I am the militia, and I regulate myself very well, thank you very much. I'll own detachable magazine-fed, semi-automatic rifles ("assault weapons," to the ridiculous gun ban zealots, although I much prefer the term "regime change rifles), "high capacity" magazines, a .50 caliber rifle or two, and tens of thousands of rounds of ammunition, for the rest of my life.And no one can stop me.
But it says "the militia" is necessary for the security of a free state. It doesn't say "the militia or a standing army". Again- there is no built in repeal. All you need to do is convince congress and 2/3rds of the state legislators that militias aren't necessary anymore and then you can have your wish. No big deal. It's in writing by the authors of the constitution how to amend it.
Militias no longer exist and obviously you haven't read Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and other founding fathers on their definition of the 2nd amendment, which they wrote. Try again.
Militias no longer exist . . . Hundreds of militias exist, Einstein.
"Militias no longer exist and obviously you haven't read Jefferson, Adams, Franklin, and other founding fathers on their definition of the 2nd amendment, which they wrote." Looks like Texas didn't get the memo Anon,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Texas_State_Guard And apparently there are about 21 other states besides Texas you need to contact to let them know that their militias don't exist. Here's a list,https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/State_defense_force
Since you gun loons refuse to read the authors of the 2nd amendment and their definition of their amendment, you are not only wrong, but not worth debating it with.
Does the necessity for a free state still exist? That’s the stated condition for the purpose of the amendment. But you are still not getting my point. Even if it were only about whether or not militias exist, who decided whether or not they exist? You? Of course, not. It is decided by the national and state governments through the constitutional amendment process.
Who decided? The American people and the American government acting on their behalf. YOU GUN LOONS are the ones claiming what makes a militia, and are dishonest about it. Look up militia in the dictionary TS BS.
Anonymous said it right. At the time of the founders, a standing army was something to be feared and one of the main reasons for not infringing on the rights of men to form militias. Obviously this is not the case any more. You guys have bastardized the meaning of the 2A - well not you guys, but your predecessors. You've just taken up the fictitious mantle.
MikeB: " At the time of the founders, a standing army was something to be feared and one of the main reasons for not infringing on the rights of men to form militias. Obviously this is not the case any more."Who decides that we shouldn't fear standing armies anymore? That's what I keep saying. There is a process for determining that the constitution should be changed. You guys keep wanting to change it without going through the process- something fundamentally against the Republic.
Anonymous said it right.I'm not convinced that Anon has ever said anything "right." With or without a standing army, the militia remains necessary to the security of a free state. And besides, as TS points out, even if militias, and the need for them, do in some magical way disappear, the right to keep and bear arms will be part of the Bill of Rights until it's repealed. Good luck with that ;-).
I guess you consider the rules for amending the constitution as a "bad laws be damned" situation to be ignored.
"With or without a standing army, the militia remains necessary to the security of a free state."You mean the militia of one, you? Or those groups of delusional idiots who run around the woods on weekends pretending to be tough?And TS says we still need to fear standing armies? That's pretty stupid, especially coming from one who normally makes sense.
Look at all the destruction our standing army is doing in the Middle East. Maybe I'm the only one who thinks this is a problem, as I have learned that you liberals are a lot more pro-war as long as it's your guy ordering the killing, but as I keep saying, there is a process for changing the constitution. If you want to convince congress and state legislators that militias aren't necessary for a free state anymore, because we have this nice shiny standing army that can crush Islamic states, then make those arguments during the amendment process. Instead You want to ignore the rule of law, and say "poof, it's gone". If you are going to continue arguing this ridiculous "auto-repeal" fallacy, then you should be able to tell me the exact moment in history when standing armies were no longer feared, and the second amendment was thereby repealed? When was that, Mike? And is that "no longer feared" by a simple majority, 2/3rds majority, everyone? Did they take a vote? How do we know if it never went through the process?
You mean the militia of one, you? Or those groups . . .Militias of various sizes have their own strengths and weaknesses. A militia of one, for example, is clearly not capable of bringing a great deal of force to bear, but it's hard to beat it for opsec.And TS says we still need to fear standing armies? He's entirely correct.
No such thing as a militia of one. Read the dictionary, you are laughable.
Well Anon, it made me smile. I'm guessing Kurt was making a humerous reference to a long running Army recruiting tag line, "An Army Of One". Actually a bit more applicable since the Army is in reality not real big on people doing things alone. A militia however is a group of individual citizens who live their own lives until called upon in time of need. But I'm sure you knew that...
That proves there is militias of one? Laughable, but expected from a dishonest gun loon.
It does speak to the fact that the Second Amendment is an individual right. It also certainly simplifies the chain of command and funding.
You need to refresh your dictionary definition of militia, and of course, the writings of those who authored the 2nd A as to the intent of their 2nd A, but it's already been proven you gun loons refuse to do that and just stick with your dishonest and false word twisting of the 2nd A.
"You need to refresh your dictionary definition of militia, and of course, the writings of those who authored the 2nd A as to the intent of their 2nd A,"Well Anon, let's look at how the learned legal minds of SCOTUS defined it recently,"b) The prefatory clause comports with the Court’s interpretation of the operative clause. The “militia” comprised all males physically capable of acting in concert for the common defense. The Antifederalists feared that the Federal Government would disarm the people in order to disable this citizens’ militia, enabling a politicized standing army or a select militia to rule. The response was to deny Congress power to abridge the ancient right of individuals to keep and bear arms, so that the ideal of a citizens’ militia would be preserved. Pp. 22–28."https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/District_of_Columbia_v._HellerSo there you go.....
It's amazing you are so out front about being a dishonest kill crazy gun loon. Sorry, the Supreme Court is not a dictionary, nor are they the last word on what the definition of a word is. I asked you for a dictionary definition and you give me SCOUTS legal gibberish. Next lie SS.........
And you also suggested that I look into the intent of the Second Amendment, which Heller did quite nicely. It both defined the term militia and spoke to the intent of the Second Amendment. All in one place. And to top it off, it's had a profound effect on gun rights.
Again your dishonesty is showing. Heller did not author the 2nd A. Your lies are glaring.
Anon, SCOTUS is charged with interpreting Constitutional questions. To include what the definition of a militia. In the United States, that is who defines a militia.
SCOTUS did NOT redefine what militia means. But nice dishonest try SS, typical for you.