I'm saying that I think it would be excellent and humorous if some of that self-defense made its way into an NRA convention. Then you guys would get to test the theory that all you need to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
The NRA.
- Thread starter HereWeGoAgain
- Start date
I'm saying that I think it would be excellent and humorous if some of that self-defense made its way into an NRA convention. Then you guys would get to test the theory that all you need to stop a bad guy with a gun is a good guy with a gun.
eflatminor
Classical Liberal
- May 24, 2011
- 10,643
- 1,670
- 245
I see, you're confused. Allow me to enlighten you. The NRA does not own the convention halls in which their meetings are held. The owners of that real estate impose gun free zones, not the organizations that rent the facility for a few days.
That you find humor in mass murder says a lot about you. Think on that.
You don't get it.
I don't give a rat's ass about the 2nd amendment. I don't care if people have guns.
I just think it would be funny if the people who were constantly fighting to prevent or get rid of restrictions on guns (including access to criminals and those with a history of mental disorder) were mowed down by those very same people with unfettered access to powerful weapons (most of which aren't necessary for self-defense, I might add, but are more suitable for killing large numbers of victims).
Your petty judgment of me is meaningless. Who are you? A nobody. Stop pretending like you care about other people's lives.
eflatminor
Classical Liberal
- May 24, 2011
- 10,643
- 1,670
- 245
Those mental disorders you mentioned? Yea, seek help. Now.
Then perhaps you'll understand how wrong you are. The NRA does NOT stand against the restriction of firearms for those that have been adjudicated mentally ill. You do believe in due process, don't you? Similarly, the NRA does not stand against the restriction firearm ownership for felons. So, wrong again.
Again, seek help.
That's all.
More petty judgment. That all you got, buddy? Can't accept that human life is cheap? Speaking of Stephen Paddock; his victims have already been forgotten. Some nutjob kills a few dozen people, and everyone forgets. Same thing with every mass shooting. Why is it okay for it to happen in schools and to people at concerts, but not to NRA members?
It's kind of a joke ... NRA members acting like they care about human life. Laughable, really.
eflatminor
Classical Liberal
- May 24, 2011
- 10,643
- 1,670
- 245
Judgement? No, but I did clearly call you out on your...shall we say "misunderstanding" ...of what the NRA stands for regarding mental illness and criminal access to firearms.
Don't fret, you're not the first gun grabber to get owned around here.
Adding more lies doesn't help. "Everyone" has not forgotten about the mass murders. Certainly not you as you wish the same on others. Nobody thinks it's okay to murder...except you.
Sad.
Gun grabber? Where did I mention "grabbing guns"?
Fact is, you are trying to make me into a caricature because it's easier for you to deal with. But I'm not arguing for or against anything; merely stating that it would be funny if the NRA got gunned down like filthy, degenerate dogs.
Then you here you are, acting all morally righteous, like a butcher who complains about people who eat meat. The NRA exists for one purpose; to aid gun manufacturers in their quest for profit. And guns have one purpose; to kill.
I am simply advocating for guns to do their job, and you are arguing against it. Why? Because you think I want fewer guns? Certainly not. I don't care one way or the other. I just have a sense of humor. I understand their purpose. I understand the nature of humanity. There are going to be mass shootings, especially when it's so easy for dangerous people to get weapons. Why not the NRA? Thoughts and prayers, right?
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,051
- 53,555
- 2,290
And yet, they don't...do you know whay? Because shooters know that armed people attend NRA conventions....so they don't shoot them up. Unlike schools, that have been made into democrat gun free zones by people like you, shooters target schools because they know no one will be there to stop them.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,051
- 53,555
- 2,290
Wow...... anti gun, anti NRA talking points....did they simply pull your string and let you post? That is about the intellectual level you just showed in your ignorance about the NRA.
That's an opinion.
I fully expect the day will come. We'll see how well that theory holds then.
Of course a gun nut would say something like that. But I'm indifferent toward guns. I don't have strong feelings about them one way or the other. But to think that the NRA has people's safety at heart is ... um, laughable at best.
Soggy in NOLA
Diamond Member
- Jul 31, 2009
- 40,565
- 5,360
- 1,830
So says the anti-gun nut.
2aguy
Diamond Member
- Jul 19, 2014
- 113,051
- 53,555
- 2,290
You mean, you tool.... the Gun safety Education programs, the training of law enforcement and the School Guard program... you mean except for all of that...right, you doofus.
Where have I been anti-gun? Where have I mentioned taking away guns? Have I insinuated that guns probably shouldn't be owned by criminals and crazy people? Sure. I think most people would agree with that.
Gotta do something to justify your existence to the common folk.
Abatis
Platinum Member
You have twisted yourself into a pretzel.
To begin with you are not quoting the majority opinion, you are quoting the syllabus. Chopping out the citations shifts the statement from Scalia just citing the long-standing law, to you arguing Scalia is scolding and teaching the gun-humpers a new thing or two.
Heller's "not unlimited / not a right to keep and carry anywhere for any purpose' is the Court recognizing that the carriage of arms can be prohibited in "sensitive places" and that the 2nd protects arms "in common use" and not those deemed "dangerous and unusual". That statement assumes that a right to posses and carry arms where those restraints are not an issue, exists and is protected. You seem to be confused by the simple 'matter of fact' statement here . . .
Sigh . . . Here you read "upholding" when the Court says "not in conflict with" and that is a disingenuous invention.
The primary reason that prohibitions on concealed carry were not considered in conflict with the 2nd is that these laws were state or local laws, and in the 18th Century as well as 2008, the 2nd had yet to be enforced on state action . . . McDonald changed that dynamic and as I noted earlier, last month the federal 9th Circuit enforced the 2nd Amendment on Hawaii's restrictive carry law and held it to be unconstitutional under the 2nd Amendment. If a jurisdiction chooses to bar concealed carry, they must allow open carry.
Again, you are expanding what the Court said to the point of baldly lying.
You can stop that.
Just because you're confused doesn't mean the Court is equivocating.
I did; Cruikshank and Presser.
What the Court said is that the right to bear arms for lawful purpose (self defense in public) is not granted by the 2nd Amendment. So, if you are looking for "two different things", the Court is saying the RKBA and the 2nd Amendment are two very different things.
To directly answer your question, in Cruikshank, the Court says the "right to bear arms for lawful purpose" (self defense in public) is the "it" that the 2nd says "shall not be infringed":
"bearing arms for a lawful purpose . . . is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed; but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by Congress."
What is "it"?
In Presser the Court quotes Cruikshank but removes the case-specific language:
"in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress."
So, the right of the people to keep and bear arms = bearing arms for a lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public.
.
Last edited:
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 55,149
- 15,282
- 2,180
I was doing so good, as in, I was saying what you wanted to hear. Then all of a sudden you had something you didn't want to hear.
"When you put into the right a government established purpose, you are granting the government power to limit the right."
No, you're misunderstanding. There is a purpose for the right, that doesn't mean it's the only reason it has a protection.
The 1st Amendment has reasons for being. That doesn't mean that's a limit on the protection. It just means that's the reason why it was explicitly put into the Constitution, unlike the right to privacy which was put unwritten.
Last edited:
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 55,149
- 15,282
- 2,180
"So, the right of the people to keep and bear arms = bearing arms for a lawful purpose = carrying guns for self defense in public."
You're making massive leaps of the imagination here.
Firstly, I've shown you that the founders never intended for this to be the case.
Secondly Cruikshank used the term "The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.'" Because this is what was in front of it.
"The second avers an intent to hinder and prevent the exercise by the same persons of the 'right to keep and bear arms for a lawful purpose.'"
This is the second count which it talks about in that particular quote.
The thing with the Cruikshank case is that the men were formed together in a militia. No the state militia, but nonetheless it was, at the time, considered to be a militia.
Therefore bearing arms for a lawful purpose doesn't seem to be anything other than these people believing they were in their right to be in the militia.
There's nothing there about individuals just carrying arms around willy nilly.
Presser is interesting.
"We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities [116 U.S. 252, 265] and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms."
It talks about "men to associate together as military organizations".
The reality is the Second Amendment only protects individuals to be in THE militia. This militia has state appointed officers and can be called up to Federal service.
HOWEVER, at the time things were seen differently. Militias were seen as men from the local area getting together to carry out a certain action on behalf of the locality. They didn't have state officers, they didn't have training, they couldn't be called up to Federal service within the context of their "militia".
This is exactly as happened in the Cruikshank case.
"Again, you are expanding what the Court said to the point of baldly lying.
You can stop that."
No, I'm not lying, I'm not misleading, I'm not doing anything of the sort.
When a case comes before the Supreme Court, the Court knows that if there's a previous case on the matter, that they either stick with precedent of that case, or they overturn it. Two options.
The Supreme Court could have said that Presser was no longer valid. They could have said because the 2A includes an individual right to carry arms, that drilling and parading with arms and associating as a military organization are actually protected by the constitution.
They didn't. They said that Presser precedent doesn't get in the way of the individual view.
Now, you've come up with the incorporation view that meant that the 2A didn't apply to the state or the city. But in the Heller case they didn't discuss this. They merely stated that you don't need to be in the state militia to have access to those rights. Ie, the individual view over the collective view.
So, the Court didn't say that states banning men from drilling together went against an individual view of the right to bear arms. They upheld the Presser case. Dishonest? Not at all. They didn't strike it down, so they upheld it.
frigidweirdo
Diamond Member
- Mar 7, 2014
- 55,149
- 15,282
- 2,180
Okay, I quoted nothing of yours. I'm just going to expand.
We have two things here.
We have the history and we have the Supreme Court's view of things.
Let's look at the parts of Heller you were bitching about that I didn't talk about.
"The Second Amendment is naturally divided into two parts: its prefatory clause and its operative clause. The former does not limit the latter grammatically, but rather announces a purpose."
This is what we've spoke about before. It explains why the Amendment was put in place, but doesn't limit the latter grammatically. As I said.
"Logic demands that there be a link between the stated purpose and the command. "
"But apart from that clarifying function, a prefatory clause does not limit or expand the scope of the operative clause. "
No, it doesn't limit it. However it doesn't also allow for fantasy.
So, imagine this "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of the free state, the right of the people to carry guns around with them shall not be infringed"
Seems disjointed.
Now we get onto the Court in Heller being a little misleading, to say the least.
" At the time of the founding, as now, to "bear" meant to "carry.""
Yes, "bear" can mean "carry". It can also mean other things
-Can't bear something
-Carry
-Give birth
-to yield crops
Definition of BEAR
"
— bear arms
1: to carry or possess arms
2: to serve as a soldier"
This dictionary uses the term "bear arms" as different from bear used without arms.
One is to carry or possess arms, the second to serve as a soldier.
"When used with "arms," however, the term has a meaning that refers to carrying for a particular purpose--confrontation."
Ah, so we have the Supreme Court saying "bear arms" means with some intent or purpose that involves using the arms for some kind of force. Whether physical force, intimidation, or just to keep the peace.
"Although the phrase implies that the carrying of the weapon is for the purpose of "offensive or defensive action," it in no way connotes participation in a structured military organization."
Here they put in something at the end to basically say "you don't need to be in the militia to have the protection of this right"
It's gone from "offensive or defensive" action within a military context to within any context at all. Ie, self defense.
However this comes from another court case where Ginsburg basically used "bear arms" using "bear" as "carry", rather than "bear arms" together.
" From our review of founding-era sources, we conclude that this natural meaning was also the meaning that "bear arms" had in the 18th century. In numerous instances, "bear arms" was unambiguously used to refer to the carrying of weapons outside of an organized militia. The most prominent examples are those most relevant to the Second Amendment: Nine state constitutional provisions written in the 18th century or the first two decades of the 19th, which enshrined a right of citizens to "bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" or "bear arms in defense of himself and the state.""
Now, this is true. The problem is that each and every one of these clauses was SPECIFIC in this purpose whereas the Second Amendment WAS NOT.
The Second Amendment wrote "the right to keep and bear arms"
"bear arms in defense of themselves and the state" and "bear arms in defense of himself and the state." are specific.
However it's hard to tell in what manner they were written. I've struggled to find documents pertaining to this.
Does this mean that you have the right to defend yourself from intruders, or defend yourself from invading forces?
Remember at the time that the Native Americans were a constant threat, and that actually having to defend yourself militarily was a real thing back then.
"These provisions demonstrate--again, in the most analogous linguistic context--that "bear arms" was not limited to the carrying of arms in a militia."
And here it's where they've taken a massive leap.
No, "bear arms" is not limited to the militia. You have to have the protection of the right to be in the militia otherwise the whole thing doesn't work. Imagine having to be in the militia in order to be protected to be in the militia. They could kick people out of the militia and then you'd no longer have that protection. Silly.
However they've taken two things, "carry arms" instead of "militia duty" "render military service" etc, and then said something true on top of something that is false.
"The phrase "bear Arms" also had at the time of the founding an idiomatic meaning that was significantly different from its natural meaning: "to serve as a soldier, do military service, fight" or "to wage war.""
This is where the Supreme Court gets confusing. They're basically saying "we know what this means, but **** it, we're going to go off the rails and say stuff that isn't true because we can."
"But it unequivocally bore that idiomatic meaning only when followed by the preposition "against," "
I disagree. The document I presented before does not use "bear arms" + "against" to mean "militia duty" and "render military service.
Amendment II: House of Representatives, Amendments to the Constitution
Also the different versions of what would become the Second Amendment also do not use "against" with "bear arms" even when they use "render military service" synonymously with "bear arms".
"Every example given by petitioners' amici for the idiomatic meaning of "bear arms" from the founding period either includes the preposition "against" or is not clearly idiomatic."
Here's the problem, willful ignorance. At times the Supreme Court has presented historical data willingly. Here they have refused to supply their own and simply said "well, the petitioners didn't say anything like this, therefore we're going to pretend it didn't happen.
"Giving "bear Arms" its idiomatic meaning would cause the protected right to consist of the right to be a soldier or to wage war--an absurdity that no commentator has ever endorsed."
Which again is a complete and UTTER LIE. I have the FOUNDING FATHERS saying this. Not just one either. And them saying this in the House.
The Supreme Court is deliberately misleading, ignoring history and FACT in order to make a case that is wrong.
" Worse still, the phrase "keep and bear Arms" would be incoherent. The word "Arms" would have two different meanings at once: "weapons" (as the object of "keep") and (as the object of "bear") one-half of an idiom. It would be rather like saying "He filled and kicked the bucket" to mean "He filled the bucket and died." Grotesque."
This is just ridiculous. I mean, to "kick the bucket" has nothing to do with buckets. To "bear arms" comes from carry + arms but in the sense of a duty.
They make the case that "bear arms" could be used outside of military context.
The Supreme Court quoted this
What Did "Bear Arms" Mean in the Second Amendment? by Clayton E. Cramer, Joseph Edward Olson :: SSRN
"Previous scholarly examination of the phrase “bear arms” in English language documents published around the time of the Constitution does show almost entirely military uses or contexts."
"If you look in databases consisting almost entirely of government documents, it should not be a surprise that most of the uses will be governmental in nature. "
Wait, what? We're discussing a document, the Constitution, which is about the government. The Second Amendment is a limit on the government. And he's saying most of the meanings of "bear arms" in relation to the government mean "militia duty" and "render military service" as does the House document discussing the future Second Amendment.
"Searching more comprehensive collections of English language works published before 1820 shows that there are a number of uses that are clearly individual, and have nothing to do with military service. "
"The Framers’ generation used “bear arms” in both civilian and military contexts. "
"[A]nd, if, within twelve months after the date of the recognizance he shall bear a gun"
Which isn't "bear arms" but "bear a gun". Irrelevant.
" “The right of the citizens to bear arms in the defence of themselves shall not be questioned.”"
We go back to a specific thing "in defence of themselves" which is vague at best.
Basically the Supreme Court has used a very long winded account of how "bear arms" doesn't have to mean "militia duty" or "render military service" but really doesn't find one example of "a right to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" or something similar without something coming in after, which does not mean "render military service" or "militia duty".
It's an age old tactic of presenting a shit load of data and trying to make people believe you when you've actually presented nothing that is actually relevant.
The simple fact is, when used in the manner it was used in in the Second Amendment, it almost always (I say this because I can't confirm "always") refers to "render military service" or "militia duty".
The Supreme Court is being deliberately misleading on this. They know better. But they know what they want too. And they have limits on what they'll say, they'll not say things too directly, but they'll get away with saying stuff that is just plain wrong at the same time.
Bootney Lee Farnsworth
Diamond Member
The NRA does not support my natural right to a motherfucking machine gun.
**** the NRA.
**** the NRA.
Similar threads
New Topics
-
Transgender women (Men) banned from Olympics by new IOC policy- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 0
-
Vatican City has the highest consume of wine per capita worldwide
- Started by Zebra
- Replies: 2
-
-
-
U.S. intercepted Ukraine government messages discussing plot to route money to Biden re-election
- Started by DonGlock26
- Replies: 5
Latest Discussions
-
-
-
Why Are So Many Democratic Politicians So Far Out of Touch? - New York Times- Latest: Independent thinker
