News Observer
Among the current jurists who voted six years ago to rewrite the Second Amendment (many of them the same as those who have rewritten the First Amendment to make the mere expenditure of campaign money into “free speech”), there are “originalists” who claim to look back to, and honor, historic meaning. They should be sent back to elementary school reading circles to learn, among other things, the logical connection between what rhetoricians call a prolepsis and its analepsis – as embodied in the two linked clauses of the Second Amendment. The liberties they take with the plain meaning of “the right to keep and bear arms” would be less harmful if they were consistent and confined the supposed original right, as their theory would seem to demand, to flintlocks.
There were no Glock pistols or AK-47s – to say nothing of Bushmaster AR-15s – in 1791.
They should be sent back to elementary school reading circles to learn, among other things, the logical connection between what rhetoricians call a prolepsis and its analepsis . . .
ReplyDeleteWow--the author is apparently the beneficiary of an education so advanced as to have taught him the words "prolepsis" and "analepsis"-- in elementary school--no less, but is too dumb-as-a-sack-of-anvils stupid to realize that a Second Amendment that failed to guarantee the right to modern arms would be analogous to a First Amendment that fails to protect the right to modern communications technology.
Talk about some wasted "white privilege."
"an education so advanced as to have taught him the words "prolepsis" and "analepsis"-- in elementary school--no less"
DeleteMaybe you need to read it again, or should I just call you a liar again?
I stand behind my original reading.
DeleteOK--his pompous pontificating could be interpreted not to mean that the words prolepsis and analepsis are taught in "elementary school reading circles," but I can't see how one escapes the conclusion that he very strongly implies that the concepts are to be learned there.
As for calling me a liar "again," I think of that lie of yours as being constant--it doesn't happen "again," it happens still.
That's what you do when cornered, deny. First you said "to have taught him the words "prolepsis" and "analepsis"" Now you're saying something about the concepts.
DeleteIsn't it possible that the logical "concepts" might be taught in grammar school but the 50-cent-words that "rhetoricians" use come later?
Sure it is, but you made a mistake in interpreting what was said, and like an insecure baby, you refused to admit it and slickly changed the wording from "the words" to "the concept."
I clarified my position, Mikeb. Sorry that's too "slick" for your tender sensibilities. Perhaps another adjustment of the meds is in order.
DeleteYeah, right.
DeleteAh, another person who doesn't like the move towards more individual freedoms. Or at least those he doesn't like. Especially interesting that he even seems to object to the recent expansion of First Amendment rights also. I especially like it when they make the same old trite claim in regards to the founders' intent,
ReplyDelete"The liberties they take with the plain meaning of “the right to keep and bear arms” would be less harmful if they were consistent and confined the supposed original right, as their theory would seem to demand, to flintlocks.
There were no Glock pistols or AK-47s – to say nothing of Bushmaster AR-15s – in 1791."
Its remarkable, as always, that we have no problem dealing with advances in technology when it comes to say, the First and Fourth Amendments, yet somehow when it comes to technology regarding the Second, someone always insists that only flintlocks apply.
Well, let's look at it this way. The difference between communicating by writing with a quill pen and using e-mail is a lot smaller than the difference between bearing a flintlock and bearing an AK. Don't you agree?
Delete"The difference between communicating by writing with a quill pen and using e-mail is a lot smaller than the difference between bearing a flintlock and bearing an AK."
DeleteNo Mike, I don't. The firearms the author talks of are really not functionally different that other firearms. Makes you wonder at what point in history he's willing to acede that citizens can use the technology of.
I recall not so long ago that they attempted to regulate technology when PGP was marketed. Didn't work then. Don't see it working now.
Not in the least. The concept of a gun is still the same as it was 200 years ago. You look down the sights, pull a trigger, and gun powder sends a projectile down the barrel. It would probably take about 30 seconds to explain the technology advances to a founding father brought forward in time, with the biggest difference that there is a cartridge that contains the powder and the bullet. Whoop-dee. I can’t see them being perplexed by pistol grips and magazines (they had spring technology back then, you know).
Delete“What kind of sorcery is this that pushes a new cartridge forward when one is removed?”
They even had more powerful arms than is allowed today since they had no restrictions on cannons when the Second Amendment was written.
DeleteThe difference between communicating by writing with a quill pen and using e-mail is a lot smaller than the difference between bearing a flintlock and bearing an AK. Don't you agree?
DeleteOf course I don't agree, and I rather resent the implication that I'm stupid enough to agree to such a ridiculous notion.
Besides, as TS points out, it's clearly false to claim that the Second Amendment at the time it was drafted and ratified limited its protection to the keeping and bearing of flintlocks. Not only cannons, but the "high capacity" Girandoni Rifles were privately owned at the time.
So no, I don't think that the difference between sending an email, instantaneously to nearly any point on Earth (or even Earth orbit), and writing out a letter with a quill pen, on parchment, to be carried for weeks on horseback to the coast, then travelling for months by ship (if the ship doesn't sink), to my correspondent in Australia; is "a lot smaller than" bearing a 20-round Girandoni and bearing a 30-round AK.
I'm way too sane and intelligent to believe that.
"The firearms the author talks of are really not functionally different that other firearms. "
Deletess, we're not comparing AKs to hunting rifles. We're comparing AKs to flintlocks. The difference is huge. Whereas, the difference between communicating with words hand-written on a parchment using a quill pen and those printed on a computer screen is not all that great.
No, you're comparing AKs to only flintlocks. We're also comparing AKs to Girandonis and cannons, which unsurprisingly you don't want to do.
DeleteYou really don't think there a big communication difference between parchment and the internet? Seriously? One you can hand to a couple people to read, and the other can be blasted to millions or billions of people instantly. It's the difference between a gun and a nuclear intercontinental missile arsenal.
This talk of 18th century firearm technology brings to mind the Puckle Gun, an early 18th century 11-shooter (although admittedly not a very successful design).
DeleteThe "special" version, that fired square bullets, for use against Muslims, was an . . . interesting idea. Not a good idea, but undeniably interesting.
Here's a question, Mikeb, about this supposedly enormous "difference between bearing a flintlock and bearing an AK."
DeleteAre you comfortable with the absence of any requirement for a background check--the nonexistence, indeed, of the concept of "prohibited persons," in terms of acquisition of flintlock firearms?
Are you comfortable with kids being allowed unrestricted access to flintlocks, or with people carrying flintlocks (whether openly or concealed) with no permit required?
Or . . . is the difference between flintlocks and more modern firearms, such as the more-than-half-century old AK-47, not so vast, after all?
" We're also comparing AKs to Girandonis and cannons, which unsurprisingly you don't want to do."
DeleteIf you want to name the biggest baddest shit they had in 1790, then you shouldn't stop at AKs when making a modern comparison.
It's funny TS, how sloppy you can get sometimes (on purpose) as opposed to your usual precision.
Kurt, is your memory slipping again? I don't agree with the general dispensation granted black-powder guns. Heck, I even object to the lack of regulations on toy and replica guns. You knew this, right?
DeleteKurt, is your memory slipping again?
DeleteYou don't really expect me to remember the vast number of regulations you want, do you? Besides, the way your positions have of "evolving" (or perhaps devolving) over time, it makes sense to check with you from time to time on any given position.
Anyway, the point is that apparently flintlocks are not so different from breech-loaded, metallic cartridge-firing, smokeless powder-burning, semi-automatic, detachable magazine-fed rifles as to justify in your mind less restrictive regulation.
That being the case, why would you think that the Founding Fathers would see these two categories of arms as being so different that one would get Constitutional protection, but the other would not?
"If you want to name the biggest baddest shit they had in 1790, then you shouldn't stop at AKs when making a modern comparison."
DeleteMike, while I cant speak for TS, the impression I got was that he was mentioning things available for private ownership back in that period of time.
Present day, private citizens are only permitted widespread possession of semi-automatic versions of ARs, AKs, etc. Citizens for the most part are limited to firearms no larger than .50 caliber. Beyond that, they are classified as destructive devices and subject to more stringent restrictions.
So citizens used to be able to possess cannons and such, and now, people are having issues with ordinary citizens possessing semi-automatic rifles, or firearms that have been even used by the military, or firearms that are too accurate.
Thanks, Sarge. You saved me some typing.
Delete"That being the case, why would you think that the Founding Fathers would see these two categories of arms as being so different that one would get Constitutional protection, but the other would not?"
DeleteThere you go, Kurt, doing that honesty thing again. Flintlocks and AKs are similar.
OK, let's use what civilians are allowed to own today, .50 caliber sniper rifles as well as fully automatic machine guns (with the proper license, of course). Are you guys really saying those are comparable to the arms available to ordinary citizens in 1790?
DeleteThere you go, Kurt, doing that honesty thing again
DeleteShould I take that to mean that no answer to my question will be forthcoming?
. . . fully automatic machine guns (with the proper license, of course).
Let's take a look at that "proper licens[ing]" (a concept that would probably have been quite alien in 18th century US) scheme, shall we?
Utterly unavailable in many states, "may issue," in a way that is often effectively "no issue," every machine gun cataloged in a federal registry (which also has every licensee's fingerprints), several months wait for issuance of the license, a $200 licensing fee (per gun), but that is a drop in the bucket when compared to the vast artificial inflation of the cost, brought about by federal law that bans private ownership of any of these arms that are (as of this year) less than 29 years old, etc;
That's why SSG and TS make a very good point that NFA items don't really belong on a list of arms widely legal for the majority of Americans (or "available to ordinary citizens," per your wording)..
Are you, Mikeb, really saying the widely available arms are less comparable to the arms available to ordinary citizens in 1790, than the ability to instantly email billions of recipients all over the planet is comparable to the ability to use a feather to scratch out a message on a piece of sheep or goat skin (excuse me--billions of pieces of sheep or goat skin), to be delivered by horseback and sailing ship?
"the ability to instantly email billions of recipients all over the planet "
DeleteKurt, do provide an example of such an e-mail. Then you can tell us again how you don't exaggerate to the point of lying.
DeleteActually, it was TS who first brought up the possibility of sending an email to billions all over the planet:
One you can hand to a couple people to read, and the other can be blasted to millions or billions of people instantly.
As it happens, I know of no example of such an email. Do provide an explanation of how lack of an example of it having been done constitutes evidence that it can't be done. We know that there are over 3 billion internet users. I trust you don't plan to argue that fewer than a third of internet users have an email address.
All you need is a billion email addresses and then you could send an email to a billion people.
DeleteAnd don't pretend that automatic weapons are treated as a right in this country when civilian production has been banned for nearly 30 years and whole states ban transfers entirely.
All right you two lying exaggerators, show us an example of an e-mail which HAS BEEN sent to 2 billion or more recipients. Either that or admit it was made up bullshit.
Delete. . . show us an example of an e-mail which HAS BEEN sent to 2 billion or more recipients. Either that or admit it was made up bullshit.
DeleteNeither of us ever made the claim that such a mass emailing has ever occurred--we only pointed out that neither law nor the limits of technology prevent it happening. The fact that something has not yet happened does not constitute any evidence at all that it cannot happen.
TS and I, therefore, have nothing to "admit", and the only lying going on here is by the one calling us "lying exaggerators."
You're doing that thing that you accuse Kurt and me of- glomming onto a diversion. There are billions of spam emails sent every day (across multiple sources, though). I can't prove that a single email was ever sent to two billion people because I don't have access to that, and that wasn't the point of my claim. The technology and infrastructure is there. If you want be to back off on the word "billions", fine, I'm not that stubborn. Do you want to settle on "hundreds of millions"? Does that help your point?
DeleteYou're doing that thing that you accuse Kurt and me of- glomming onto a diversion.
DeleteYou noticed that, too, did you, TS? Looks as if he's running away from the fact that communications technology has advanced more than firearms tech.
Oh, and by the way, Mikeb, about this:
. . . sent to 2 billion or more recipients.
If we did have to prove "billions," it wouldn't require "2 billion or more recipients"--1 billion and one would do. That's because 1.000000001 billion is more than 1 billion. Since "more than 1" is plural, tacking an "s" on the end of "billion" is appropriate.
You're right, you did say "the ability to send an e-mail to billions of recipients. You didn't say that such an e-mail had ever been sent. So, I'll repeat, prove it. Don't give me any more weasel bullshit like you didn't say one has ever been sent. I say the ability does not exist, that you made up that bullshit.
DeleteAbout the billions, would you ever refer to 101 as hundreds? NO. Hundreds is reserved for 200 or more.
You guys, Kurt and TS, have proven yourselves to be insecure babies who cannot admit when you're wrong. And liars to insist that your not.
So, I'll repeat, prove it
DeleteNo. I owe you no such proof. Besides, the only way I can think of to prove it would be for me to actually send an email to a billion and one recipients--something for which I have neither the resources, nor any inclination whatsoever.
Don't give me any more weasel bullshit like you didn't say one has ever been sent . . .
Make up your mind, Mikeb. Is it: "You're right, you did say 'the ability to send an e-mail to billions of recipients. You didn't say that such an e-mail had ever been sent;" or is it "weasel bullshit"? We're either right in saying that we talked about the ability, rather than it having been done, or it's "weasel bullshit" that we said that. It cannot be both.
I say the ability does not exist . . .
What prevents it? You're suddenly into demanding proof. You prove that it can't be done.
About the billions, would you ever refer to 101 as hundreds?
No, because that does admittedly go well outside the usual usage of the term "hundreds." However, I'm too intelligent and sane to accuse someone who did make such a technically true reference of "lying."
And besides, even if it were true (and I make no such concession) that the maximum number of email recipients is limited (somehow) to hundreds of millions, rather than billions, does that materially affect our claim that communications technology has advanced at least as enormously since 1790 as firearms technology has? If not, you are indeed guilty of "diverting" the discussion with an attempt at some silly bullshit "gotcha."
Looks as if you've proven yourself to be an insecure lying baby, Mikeb. It really wasn't necessary--we knew.
Ok Mike, I'll acquiesce and admit I was wrong. It's impossible to send an email to billions of people now and in the immediate future. I don't know why, but I will bow to your IT knowledge. Does that get you back on track? If so, maybe now it can be your turn to admit you are wrong. You only took exception to the use of my word "billions" and not "millions". So why don't you go ahead and explain how it is not much harder to send a communication to millions of people using quill pens and parchment, or admit that you were wrong.
DeleteMike, let me help define the boundaries of the challenge laid before you. You called the difference between an AK and a musket "huge", and the difference between electronic communication vs. quill and parchment "not all that great". We can ignore the Girandoni for your benefit. You can use the time it takes to get of 30 shots for each. Let's say it takes two seconds to load each 7.62x39 round into the magazine, then another ten seconds to fire them off- that's 70 seconds total. The average soldier could fire three rounds from a musket in a minute, so that's 600 seconds to get off 30, for a difference of 8.5 times as long. That's what you called "huge". I don't know what number you would call "not all that great"- say 3x? So now explain how you could distribute a quill and parchment communication to a million people in say 3-4x as long as it would take via email.
Delete"You can use the time it takes to get of 30 shots for each. Let's say it takes two seconds to load each 7.62x39 round into the magazine, then another ten seconds to fire them off- that's 70 seconds total. The average soldier could fire three rounds from a musket in a minute, so that's 600 seconds to get off 30, for a difference of 8.5 times as long. That's what you called "huge". I don't know what number you would call "not all that great"- say 3x?"
DeleteAnd we could always look at the increase in capabilities of firearms during the civil war. During that war, they went from the three rounds per minute with muzzle loading rifles to 8-9 rounds per minute with breech loading rifles. Then many soldiers spent their own reenlistment money to but the new Henry lever action repeater which had a rate of fire of 28 rounds per minute.
"The brass framed rifles could fire at a rate of 28 rounds per minute when used correctly, so soldiers who saved their pay to buy one often believed it would help them survive. They were frequently used by scouts, skirmishers, flank guards, and raiding parties, rather than in regular infantry formations. To the amazed muzzleloader-armed Confederates who had to face this deadly "sixteen shooter", it was called "that damned Yankee rifle that they load on Sunday and shoot all week!"
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Henry_rifle
I'll stick to my original position. The increase in firearm capability from 1790 to today is immense because it is measured in the potential and real loss of life. Think about what Adam Lanza did. The increase in communications capabilities is also great (I'll change that a bit), but since its yardstick is not the measurement of dead bodies, it's not the same.
DeleteI see. So now, it's not the magnitude of the technological advance that is supposedly so much greater with regard to firearms than with regard to communication, it's the fundamental nature of weapons vs. communications. That's a rather long way the goal posts have suddenly been moved.
DeleteThe increase in communications capabilities is also great (I'll change that a bit), but since its yardstick is not the measurement of dead bodies . . .
So do you think the rioting and deaths provoked by "Pastor" Terry Jones' Koran burning would have happened if news of his action had been transmitted only by ink on parchment?
Ever wonder why communications are so important to modern military forces, Mikeb? Do you really think that warfare could so efficiently consume lives if commanders were limited to using drums, pipes and signal flags to transmit their orders?
Do you think Al Qaeda and ISIS don't greatly value social media as a recruiting tool and propaganda weapon? Do you think a rabidly murderous demagogue could enthrall nearly as many people, nearly as quickly, without modern communications tech?
Here's another thought on the supposedly greater threat of technological advances in small arms, as compared to similarly large, or even larger, advances in communications tech. You once said, Mikeb, that, "The damage [I'm] doing in the world is 'incalculable.'"
DeletePresumably, you would be willing to acknowledge that advances in firearm technology have done nothing to augment the "damage" I do, since I have shot, at most, a number of people equal to the number you have shot.
I would hope that you would also acknowledge that this "damage" I'm doing has been boosted by advances in communications tech. I suspect, in fact, that if I were limited to quill and parchment for spreading my "damaging" thoughts, that even your mathematical skills would be up to the task of "calculating" the "damage," don't you think?
Kurt, do you have a special system for finding and pulling up obscure quotes out of the archives?
DeleteKurt, do you have a special system for finding and pulling up obscure quotes out of the archives?
DeleteShould I take that to mean that you don't intend to address the fact that you have accused me of doing "incalculable damage" using modern communications technology, but can point to no damage I've done with modern firearms?
As for your inane question, I don't think there's anything "special" about my "system." I'll tell you what, though--if you don't like being held to account for your self-contradictions and inconsistencies, you could try holding yourself to a higher intellectual and ethical standard, and then no one could catch you in these traps of your own making, no matter how "special" the "system" used.
Kurt, it's my opinion that you do incalculable damage with your writings in the Examiner and elsewhere. That's because your readers are mainly idiot gun nuts who are rightly impressed with your glib turn of phrase as well as your intractable fanaticism. You push them towards the criminal actions you yourself refrain from. It's despicable.
DeleteIt's also my opinion that the difference between the musket of 1790 and the most advanced individual weapons of today is greater then that of the quill on parchment missive and the e-mail and internet communications of today. I already mentioned why, the one is counted in the loss of life (e.g. Lanza) and the other is not.
By the way, did you ever admit your double mistake about the billions of e-mails? First you insisted such a thing is technically possible, then most comically, you said one-billion-and-one is referred to as billions plural.
So an obscure blogger can do "incalculable" damage using modern communications technology (far more, certainly, than I could have with quill and parchment). How much damage could I do with even the most modern of firearms available to most U.S. citizens? I could possibly kill by the dozen, I suppose. Is that "incalculable"? Depends on one's math skills, I suppose.
DeleteYou also haven't addressed the fact that the most prolific killers in the modern world would be far less capable of killing in the numbers they do without modern communications.
By the way, did you ever admit your double mistake about the billions of e-mails? First you insisted such a thing is technically possible, then most comically, you said one-billion-and-one is referred to as billions plural.
I'm still waiting for evidence of a single mistake. Just some explanation of what limitation stands in the way of sending an email to billions.
And then there's this. One billion and one can be written 1.000000001 billion (because 1.000000001 is the decimal form of one and one billionth, and because one and one billionth multiplied by one billion is one billion and one). 1.000000001 is greater than 1. Since "plural" is defined as "more than one in number," then 1.000000001 of something can appropriately be referred to in plural terms. The plural of "billion," as it turns out, is "billions."
Game, set, and match, Mikeb. Better luck next time, and thanks for the entertainment.
That's the greatest spin job I've ever read. Your inability to admit a mistake and the lengths to which you'll go to avoid admitting it, is hysterical.
DeleteSo to answer my other question in this regard, you refer to 101 as hundreds? If someone owned exactly 101 guns and claimed to own hundreds of guns, you'd be ok with that? These are yes or no questions, Mr. Spin Doctor Kurt.
That's the greatest spin job I've ever read.
DeleteSave your compliments. I've got no use for 'em. What would be useful would be an explanation of which of these assertions is untrue--you only need one of them to be false, to sink my contention that one billion and one can appropriately be referred to as "billions." So which one is it:
1) One billion and one can be expressed as 1.000000001 billion.
2) 1.000000001 is greater than 1.
3) "Plural" can be appropriately defined as "more than one in number."
4) The plural of "billion" is "billions."
If all four are true, then so is my contention that referring to one billion and one as "billions" is not a "lie."
So to answer my other question in this regard, you refer to 101 as hundreds?
I've already answered that inane question, you ridiculous clown. Look it up.
If someone owned exactly 101 guns and claimed to own hundreds of guns, you'd be ok with that?
Would I "be ok with that"? Well of course. What kind of idiot would bother objecting to that? Oh, wait--I suppose we know exactly what kind of idiot would.
Again, I observe that if our positions were reversed, you would be shrieking about my having "diverted" the discussion. But then again, you've never been shy about being a hypocrite.
Now that you've had your remedial instruction (hopefully sufficient, finally) on the meaning of "billions," Mikeb, I'll note without surprise that you have failed to answer my repeated question as to what would impose this notional less-than-one-billion-and-one limit on the number of possible recipients to whom an email could be sent.
DeleteSo instead of trying to require you to solve this great, deep mystery, forget about what imposes the limit. Perhaps you can instead merely edify me on what you think the limit is. Don't worry about precision--anything within an order of magnitude is fine. 100 million? 10 million? Let's hear it.
TS, can you imagine how much of Mikeb's silly whining we could have spared ourselves, had we said "approximately billions"?
DeleteAh, well. Live and learn.
And we are back to the belief the Second Civil Right is ONLY about firearms. It is NOT so. It is about arms, period. It is a right to own and carry ARMS, what ever they may be. Its seems that this fact is often overlooked, especially by those that are anti gun.
ReplyDeleteYou cannot remove or separate the types of arms in the Second Civil Right. The move to remove the Second Civil Right removes ALL forms of defensive weaponry. However it still does not remove the right to OWN them. That right is also protected in commerce and property ownership. The right to defense is the only thing removed.
So you gun grabbers REAL intent is to leave individuals defenseless. That's a pretty shameful position to take.
"The move to remove the Second Civil Right removes ALL forms of defensive weaponry."
DeleteWrong. The absence of the 2A does not equal a total ban on civilian ownership rights. It might be easier to enact the latter, but they are two different things.
"The absence of the 2A does not equal a total ban on civilian ownership rights. It might be easier to enact the latter, but they are two different things."
DeleteMike, lets not forget what the Heller and McDonald did, they removed total bans on possession. I'm currently reading a very interesting book on the history of the gun culture titled "Negros and the Gun". One of the first things attempted after the Civil War was to enact laws prohibiting or restricting gun ownership by the recently freed slaves.
These laws were not allowed to be enforced by federal authorities, who had a very clear view that the Second Amendment protected ALL citizens' right to keep bear arms. To include carry outside the home by the way.
The Jim Crow laws enacted by Democrats restricting minority gun ownership weren't enacted until after federal administration of the former Confederate states ended.
Your right Mike, my fault for not including one word.
ReplyDeleteRemoving the second Civil Right removes ALL defensive weaponry USE.
That's the core meaning of the Second Civil Right, to able to own and carry weapons of all suitable forms for the purposes of DEFENSE. Whether it be for personal or state.
The 1st A has limits and regulations on it. Should the 2nd A be any different? Or maybe you think no right should have any limitations, or regulations on it?
ReplyDelete"The 1st A has limits and regulations on it."
ReplyDeleteAnd these limits and regulations come into play AFTER the misuse of speech. Much like laws punishing assault and homicide come into play for misuse of a firearm.
The few laws restricting speech that deal with public assembly are often challenged in court and not well enforced as can be seen in recent protests. There are however many restrictions on the Second Amendment which come into play BEFORE the right can be exercised.
So you see no difference over a right to a deadly weapon and free speech? Seems logical to me that a deadly weapon should come with more restrictions. Speech cannot cause a direct death.
DeleteSpeech cannot cause a direct death.
DeleteAre victims of "indirect death" any less dead?
"So you see no difference over a right to a deadly weapon and free speech?"
DeleteSecond Amendment rights are already much more heavily restricted than First Amendment rights.
You know what? The more I read this thread the more I think comparing the 1A to the 2A is bogus. They're apples and oranges. Trying to argue that rights are rights just doesn't really work, as demonstrated in these comments.
Delete"You know what? The more I read this thread the more I think comparing the 1A to the 2A is bogus."
DeletePerhaps you should try to get Ms. Watts to stop going there since the gun control side loves to trot out the comparison all the time,
"It should not be subjected to the same limits as other Constitutional rights like, for example, freedom of speech. (I can’t go yell fire in a crowded theater, for example.) "
http://mikeb302000.blogspot.com/2015/01/salon-interview-with-shannon-watts.html
But then, gun control advocates are also still denying the validity of Heller and McDonald.
Trying to argue that rights are rights just doesn't really work . . .
DeleteSo that's your case for the notion that advances in firearm technology have invalidated the right to keep and bear modern arms, but the enormous advances in communications tech have left the First Amendment intact? It's because rights aren't rights?
Man, Mikeb--I hope you become a central figure in the "gun control" movement. You'd be better in that role than McCarthy and Biden combined, for the purposes of rights advocates.
Funny Kurt. I guess the cause of a death means nothing to you.
DeleteSS, as it should be IMO.
"But then, gun control advocates are also still denying the validity of Heller and McDonald."
DeleteWell, I don't know if we deny its validity as much as just call it a mistake which will be reversed in the future. For now, it is the law.
"Well, I don't know if we deny its validity as much as just call it a mistake which will be reversed in the future. For now, it is the law."
DeleteMike its always been the law. Its just that it has come to the point that the people have been denied their rights to the point that legal challenged was take to SCOTUS had to confirm it. But just short of confirming it all. Just )( this short, but it will come.
What has always been the law? The Heller decision? Are you kidding? Are you talking about that old god-given, natural human right thing?
DeleteAnd that would mean that if the balance on the Supreme Court had been one judge different, and the vote went the other way, that would have always been the law?
There was no other way for the right to be interpreted. And IF, THAT'S IF, Mike we do get a change in judges to lean left of the center you simply can't reverse the decision without the entire case being brought before them or another case with different or stronger merits that will require the decision to be overturned in favor of the new case.
DeleteWhat we have now is a center balanced, altho a little left of center supreme court with one wild card. This court has voted 9 to 0 several times against Obama already. What does that tell you. They were interpreting his constitutional powers and Obama lost.
A supreme court may decide that in the Bill of Rights that blacks aren't free, women don't have the right to vote and anything beyond pen and paper isn't free speech. That's what you asking from the court, to have the court rewrite the Bill of Rights to suit what you think it says. The court does not have the power to do that.