Republicans in Panic?

[martybegan]

blind disobedience to facts can be achieved by any simpleton...

So now SC opinions are "facts"? Really.....

 

[Valerie]

i noticed you like to make things up...

 

[Ravi]

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

Gee, you sure can echo the bullshit, always sans evidence.

What you can't grasp is this concept, It it's broke, fix it or throw it out. The Second is broken, too many innocents die due to too many guns in play.

Gun deaths have been declining the past few decades, not increasing.

Link? There are at least 32,000 gun deaths a year in the USA.

32,000 includes suicides, and those should not count when one talks about the risks of gun ownership with regards to harm to others. Below is a chart of the homicde rate due to firearms from 1981 to 2010.

Those are just the ones reported to the CDC. Many states don't report. More magical thinking.

 

[Wry Catcher]

In what reality do you claim the right doesn't go to court to keep gun proliferation alive?
See: DC v. Heller

A case where the law making body of a City was superseded by your side going to court.


You might - if you wanted to debate honestly - admit that efforts to deprive gays/lesbians rights, for example:

"Rulings Upholding Marriage Discrimination: In three rulings since June 2013, judges have upheld laws denying the freedom to marry to same-sex couples: The U.S. Court of Appeals for the 6th Circuit upheld bans in KY, MI, OH and TN; and federal judges have upheld discrimination in Louisiana and Puerto Rico. Additionally, judges in several state courts, including Tennessee and Florida, have denied respect for same-sex couples' marriages for the purpose of dissolution."

Marriage Rulings in the Courts | Freedom to Marry

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

Gee, you sure can echo the bullshit, always sans evidence.

What you can't grasp is this concept, It it's broke, fix it or throw it out. The Second is broken, too many innocents die due to too many guns in play.

The 2nd is not broken. Gun deaths have been declining the past few decades, not increasing. What has increased is leftist paranoia and their desire to see only government have the means of force and protection.

Wrong ^^^, again!

Abstract

This brief review summarizes the basic epidemiology of firearm violence, a large and costly public health problem in the United States for which the mortality rate has remained unchanged for more than a decade. It presents findings for the present in light of recent trends. Risk for firearm violence varies substantially across demographic subsets of the population and between states in patterns that are quite different for suicide and homicide. Suicide is far more common than homicide and its rate is increasing; the homicide rate is decreasing. As with other important health problems, most cases of fatal firearm violence arise from large but low-risk subsets of the population; risk and burden of illness are not distributed symmetrically. Compared with other industrialized nations, the United States has uniquely high mortality rates from firearm violence.

Link: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

 

[martybegan]

i noticed you like to make things up...

Not at all. The SC's progressive wing has the "nut flush" on making crap up.

 

[Ravi]

Says who? The Founders didn't 'envision' an automatic rifle either. Or a semi-automatic pistol. If we go by arms as 'envisioned' by the Founders, we'd be limited to black powder weapons.

Save that artillery is a large bore gun or a missle launcher. Says who? Says the dictionary:

So you clearly don't know what you're talking about. A rifle is far closer to artillery than a grenade. As a rifle is actually a firearm and a discharger of missiles. A grenade is neither. So why not a grenade?

And who says that artillery isn't 'arms'. Not the US. We include artillery in our definition of 'arms' in the Arms Export Control Act. They're also included in as arms in the Arms Trade Treaty, of which we're a signatory.

So why not artillery too?

So you believe the 2nd amendment includes automatic weapons, light machine guns and the like. It only took 9 recitations to get you to finally answer the question.

How about rocket launchers? Tanks? Airplanes? These are all categorized as 'arms' per US law.

How about a bazooka then, or its wire guided equivilant for today?

Show us where the word 'arms' doesn't include artillery. As you've never quoted any source but yourself.

No. it. Isn't. When the militia mustered, people showed up with their muskets and maybe a pistol, some showed up with knives or swords or even pikes. grenades were the realm of grenadiers and sappers, not your common line infantry.

Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.

And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.

They're standard issue today.

So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?

Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.

All you are trying to do here is make me set a "line" and somehow ruin my views on strict construction. as Wry Catcher has figured out (and if you are slower than Wry Catcher, yeesh) Strict construction is not literal construction. There is room for interpretation,. What there is not room for is making crap up.

I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

 

[Ravi]

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

 

[martybegan]

2nd amendment rights are explicit. I have the right to keep and bear arms, regardless of what a local government wants or desires.

The constitution is silent on the concept of marriage in general, thus it is up to the States, in particular their legislatures to determine the content of the marriage license.

You have to understand what a strict constructionist is to understand my views, you don't have to agree with it, but you have to be able to grasp the concept, something beyond most progressives on this board.

The concept is grasped, laughed at, and dismissed.

By drooling idiots such as yourself, yes.

It gets in the way of your use of government to punish people you don't like.

Gee, you sure can echo the bullshit, always sans evidence.

What you can't grasp is this concept, It it's broke, fix it or throw it out. The Second is broken, too many innocents die due to too many guns in play.

The 2nd is not broken. Gun deaths have been declining the past few decades, not increasing. What has increased is leftist paranoia and their desire to see only government have the means of force and protection.

Wrong ^^^, again!

Abstract

This brief review summarizes the basic epidemiology of firearm violence, a large and costly public health problem in the United States for which the mortality rate has remained unchanged for more than a decade. It presents findings for the present in light of recent trends. Risk for firearm violence varies substantially across demographic subsets of the population and between states in patterns that are quite different for suicide and homicide. Suicide is far more common than homicide and its rate is increasing; the homicide rate is decreasing. As with other important health problems, most cases of fatal firearm violence arise from large but low-risk subsets of the population; risk and burden of illness are not distributed symmetrically. Compared with other industrialized nations, the United States has uniquely high mortality rates from firearm violence.

Link: An Error Occurred Setting Your User Cookie

The suicide rate is increasing, the homicide rate is decreasing. Your own quote makes my point.

A person blowing off their own head should in no way impact my right to keep and bear arms. ZERO. In any event criminal acts by others should also have ZERO impact on MY RIGHT to keep and bear arms.

 

[martybegan]

No. it. Isn't. When the militia mustered, people showed up with their muskets and maybe a pistol, some showed up with knives or swords or even pikes. grenades were the realm of grenadiers and sappers, not your common line infantry.

Neither grenadiers nor sappers were 'artillery'. So we can put that 'artillery' argument to bed.

And while grenades might not have been standard issue for a soldier in the Founder's era, neither were cartridge ammunition, semi automatic fire arms, or full metal jackets.

They're standard issue today.

So do we use the founder's standards, with no grenades, black powder weapons and muskets? Or do we use today's standards of automatic weapons, grenades, anti-personnel mines, tracers and rocket launchers?

Likewise, US law recognizes tanks, artillery, war planes, laser guided bombs, and the like as 'arms'. So why would you exclude them from your definition? Again, if we're going to go with the founder's 'vision', then we'd have black powder weapons.

All you are trying to do here is make me set a "line" and somehow ruin my views on strict construction. as Wry Catcher has figured out (and if you are slower than Wry Catcher, yeesh) Strict construction is not literal construction. There is room for interpretation,. What there is not room for is making crap up.

I'm asking you to apply your standards consistently. Your lack of consistency isn't my problem. Its yours. As the lines you draw are arbitrary, contradicted by US law, the dictionary, or just make no sense.

You are ignoring the fact that many words in English can have multiple meanings. Arms as defined in the 2nd amendment, as discussed among the founders meant personal arms, nothing more or less. Your attempts to make me into a literal-ist instead of a strict constructionist are failing on the merits.

That's quite a liberal interpretation of a word, there little boy. hahahahahahahaha Not to mention it being total BS.

Classically liberal, not the current progressive statist twat "liberal"

I imagine you are a twat. What you are not is a strict constructionists, unless it suits your agenda.

Wrong again. As I said I have no issue with the end result of SSM being legal, I just don't see it as a federal constitutional issue. Same with Abortion, I have no desire to ban it beyond what is current law, i.e. Third Trimester restrictions, but I don't see any right to it in the Constitution.

Unlike you, I separate what I want to see happen, and how it should be attained.

 

[martybegan]

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

There is no compelling reason to do any of the things you've listed.

There is no compelling reason to further restrict already law abiding gun owners in the hopes of reducing criminal gun use either, but you idiots keep proposing it.

The vast majority of guns go through law abiding citizens to nutters.

Still no reason to end my RKBA. Either do something to fix the "nutters" or do something to catch people who have guns illegally. It's not my job to make it easier on government by giving up my 2nd amendment rights.

 

[Wry Catcher]

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

 

[Valerie]

"In any event criminal acts by others should also have ZERO impact on MY RIGHT to keep and bear arms."


you sound kind of panicky, marty...

 

[Valerie]

“I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed–the Republicans will not reinstate it–are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons,” Clinton promised during her 2008 presidential campaign.


She also indicated she would support a national firearms registry.


“I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry.”

What Hillary Clinton Thinks Of The 2nd Amendment in Her Own Words

 

[jillian]

The argument about being able to regulate machine guns always descends into semi automatics, and scary looking rifles. I don't have to show anything, its where the grabbers always end up.

Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.

And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?

These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.

Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.

Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.

The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.

By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.

And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.

The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.

Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?

Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

well, he should read Justice Breyer's dissent. It may not be the law temporarily, but it's the correct assessment.... unlike Scalia's partisan insanity.

 

[jillian]

I can grasp the concept, and I reject it as absurd.

Do we still use Bloodletting to treat and prevent disease?
Do we still believe the earth is the center of the universe?
Do we still believe a solar eclipse portends a disaster?

Do you understand the concept of stare decisis? Or do you reject that too?

Nowhere in Art. I, sec 8 is the power enumerated to give to the Federal Government to Regulate air corridors, build interstate highways or the transcontinental RR. In fact one failure of the Art. of Confederation was private sector control of roads, canals and bridges. Read some history, you might find out how absurd is the concept the strict constructionist.

However, clause #1 does provide for the Congress to "...provide for the common Defence and general Welfare of the US; ..."

Hint, this is not the 18th Century! Things change, laws are passed by legislatures in cities, states and the Congress to mitigate problems which arise do to evolving social structures (e.g.). the Industrial revolution, rural vis a vis urban populations and fire power.

I'm pragmatic, you're an ideologue; the former thinks outside the box, the latter is stuck in one.

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

you understand that's absurd and not at all reflected in our caselaw.

just so you know.

 

[martybegan]

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

General Welfare is in the same sentence as provide a common defense and secure the blessings of liberty.......all are evidently important to the founders

Promoting "General Welfare" does not allow the government to ignore other parts of the constitution. You want to take a vague statement and use it to override a very very clear one.

Again, one could say Gitmo is acceptable under "general welfare", would you agree to that?

No, since Gitmo violates the Common Law and the Bill of Rights. Facilitating health care for all US citizens does fall under the general welfare concept. Consider allowing those exposed to Ebola the rights of liberty of travel?

It takes some common sense to apply the law, even the Law of the Land.

No sorry, General welfare is so vague that is covers everything. You are the one that set the bar.

General Welfare, general welfare, baa baa baaa.

 

[martybegan]

Except that it didn't. I never mentioned any of your 9mm nonsense. I never made the argument you attributed to me. So the argument you were knocking down....was your own. As you're the only one making it. We call that a 'Strawman'.

And you never did answer my questions. Since we've established that grenades aren't 'like artillery', why not grenades? Why not full auto rifles? Why not SAW light machine guns? Why not missile launchers?

These are all standard issue and state of the art for infantry men.

Yes, they are "like artillery", personal artillery, and an explosive device, not an arm.

Artillery are missile launchers like ballista or trebuchet. Or large bore guns. Neither of which fits a grenade. As I said, a rifle is far more like Artillery than a grenade is. So why not grenades? Simply 'declaring' that they aren't arms is the Begging the Question fallacy. You'll have to factually establish it. And you can't.

The Arms Trade Treaty of which the US is a signatory includes grenades, missile launchers, machine guns and the like as arms. The Arms Export Control Act defines arms as all of the above....plus howitzers, planes, tanks and the like.

By both international law and domestic law, arms include grenades, machine guns, missile launchers, automatic rifles. And far, far more. So who are you quoting when you insist that grenades and the like aren't 'arms'? Yourself, apparently....contradicted by US law.

And for the 9th time, what about automatic rifles. What about SAW light machine guns? What about anti-personnel mines? What about missile launchers.

The whole "big bad weapons" argument is the real strawman.

Why should I be denied concealed carry of a 9mm handgun?

Strawman. I haven't made that argument. I've asked you questions you refuse to answer, despite overwhelming evidence demonstrating that you're wrong in your assumptions.

A grenade is not an "arm" as envisioned in the constitution, stop getting hung up on grenades.
Its an explosive, which was the realm of artillery.

and as for a SAW? I do not see the need for a person to own one, but I support the right of a person to own one because you gun grabbing twats will use anything to make your point that I should be disarmed.

There has to be a compelling government interest in squelching a right, besides a surface to air missile not being a real arm, the governments interest in limiting ownership outweighs the desire of a person to own one.

And a rifle is not, and has never been artillery. Stick to talking about fucking people over about cakes, its your area of expertise.

Don't look now, Marty is defining words in the constitution to serve his agenda. Love the irony.

well, he should read Justice Breyer's dissent. It may not be the law temporarily, but it's the correct assessment.... unlike Scalia's partisan insanity.

Lol, and Breyer isn't partisan????

You. Fucking. Hack.

 

[martybegan]

It isn't absurd. Strict construction-ism isn't literal construction-ism. That you have to pull that card out shows you either don't really understand it, or don't want to understand it.

One can account for changes in technology without using the amendment process, however when one changes concepts radically, or adds entirely new ones to the purview of the federal government, the amendment process has to be used.

Anything else is tyranny.

You're almost correct, maybe I don't understand the ideology.. How can one account for changes in technology (i.e.semi automatic firearms with a rate of fire - depending on the shooter - of 45 - 60 RPM) today which provides such power? Power unheard of in the 18th Century in a gun easily concealed and carried by a single person.

I guess i'm not the only one to be confused, are you a literal or non literal strict contructionist? Or maybe you are an Originalist or a Textualist? Please, let us know, for most of us simply read English without bias and understand words and phrases written in the 19th, 20th and the 21st centuries must be understood in the context of the times they are written.

As for your use of the word "tyranny", I find that to be way beyond hyperbole and in the ball park of Ignorant paranoia. That's not an ad hominem, its a valid conclusion given the historical reality of tyranny by despots and kings.

It's simple. If its a concept in the document, that concept can be expanded on, or clarified. Freedom of Speech isn't limited to printed material, or yelling in the town square, expanding it to electronic media is a natural extension. As for arms, what the founders wanted people to have was the cutting edge of personal firearms at the time, I see no reason why a citizen should be restricted as long as they are 1) not a felon or 2) not mentally adjudicated. Saying I can't have a semi-automatic handgun "just because I MAY go nutters" is infringement, and prior restraint.

There is no reference to abortion in the document. Thus, it falls to the States to set up rules for that. Same goes for SSM, there is no mention of it, and thus it Falls to the States. Strict construction-ism as I see it means you don't extrapolate 2 or 3 steps to create a right, or get rid of one "just because I feel like it".

When power gets condensed further and further away from the people being ruled, it destroys federalism, and tyranny is a pretty good word to describe it.

Here's a thought (re your first sentence). Art. I, sec 8, clause #1 states a concept: "The Congress Shall have Power ... and provide for the Common Defence and general Welfare of the United States".

Thus, it seems the concept of the general Welfare, given current events, will be best served by expanding it to include gun control measures.

Spin that Marty.

One can also say it would improve "General Welfare" if we removed trial by jury, right to representation, and the right to be secure from searches without a warrant. Wouldn't that make law enforcement's job sooo much easier?

General welfare arguments are nothing more than a crutch used by people who can't justify something, so they run to a vague statement and hope for the best.

you understand that's absurd and not at all reflected in our caselaw.

just so you know.

Then why can the 2nd amendment be ignored because of "general welfare?

Again, fucking hack.

 

[sealybobo]

seems the party is concerned that the "base" is taking over the asylum

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.


*snip*

According to other Republicans, some in the party establishment are so desperate to change the dynamic that they are talking anew about drafting Romney — despite his insistence that he will not run again. Friends have mapped out a strategy for a late entry to pick up delegates and vie for the nomination in a convention fight, according to the Republicans who were briefed on the talks, though Romney has shown no indication of reviving his interest.

For months, the GOP professional class assumed Trump and Carson would fizzle with time. Voters would get serious, the thinking went, after seeing the outsiders share a stage with more experienced politicians at the first debate. Or when summer turned to fall, kids went back to school and parents had time to assess the candidates. Or after the second, third or fourth debates, certainly

Time for GOP panic? Establishment worried Carson or Trump might win.

Carson is starting to slip as suspected and Rubio/Cruz will take his place. The only thing the GOP can't figure out is how Trump is still leading and by a very large margin. They can't figure out how they are going to get rid of him. But they will get rid of him.

 

[martybegan]

“I will also work to reinstate the assault weapons ban. We had it during the 1990s. It really was an aid to our police officers, who are now once again, because it has lapsed–the Republicans will not reinstate it–are being outgunned on our streets by these military-style weapons,” Clinton promised during her 2008 presidential campaign.


She also indicated she would support a national firearms registry.


“I stand in support of this common sense legislation to license everyone who wishes to purchase a gun,” Clinton said. “I also believe that every new handgun sale or transfer should be registered in a national registry.”

What Hillary Clinton Thinks Of The 2nd Amendment in Her Own Words

So much bullshit......

Fuck her and her gun grabbing ways. and fuck you for supporting it.