The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
- Econoline
- Posts: 9563
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
I made it more than half way through, almost two-thirds actually, but now my head hurts too much to finish.
(Maybe later?) (Alligator?)
Anyway, kudos to Jon Stewart for keeping cool, calm and collected, and for not letting his brain explode—at least not during the part I watched. That Oklahoma State Senator he was interviewing is the guy God was referring to when He tweeted the comment expressed below in my signature.
(Maybe later?) (Alligator?)
Anyway, kudos to Jon Stewart for keeping cool, calm and collected, and for not letting his brain explode—at least not during the part I watched. That Oklahoma State Senator he was interviewing is the guy God was referring to when He tweeted the comment expressed below in my signature.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
-
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
The problem lies in the individual--not the gun. O K ? So keep the guns and reduce the number individuals.?
Nobody believes, not even this gentleman from Oklahoma, believes in the 2nd amendment. It plainly states that the way to regulate the militia is to not infringe on the right of the people to have guns. NOBODY advocates this. Should habitual felons not have their right to bear arms infringed? Should Any individual who has the resources to do it be permitted to construct their own hydrogen bomb? Should individuals with the mental capacities of a 5-year-old child and the biological age of 25 and in good physical health, except they are blind and stone deaf, be allowed to bear a sawed off shotgun? (I know of know no federal law that prohibits such a person from voting in federal elections---perhaps that helps explain some recent events.)
OK, let's restrict 'arms' to devices that our founding fathers in 1791 would have been familiar with. Who would say society, even the Jacksonian yeoman farmer society ideal in Virginia in 1791, after the Bill of Rights had been approved, would say there should be no government objection to giving a petard into the hand of such an individual described lastly above, particularly when they were holding a burning stick in the other hand?
Nobody REALLY wants the 2nd amendment, strictly applied.
But I believe Mr. Stewart is also onto something. The curve of wrongful deaths by firearms in increasing, and so is the curve of governmental regulation of such devices. Is there adequate objective data to show the second of these curves is reducing the first? I believe there is some such data that shows the limitation on magazine capacity was followed by a desirable downturn of deaths from 'assault rifle-style' shootings, but not the overall firearms deaths.
That is also my belief, not an assertion of fact.
Many Americans with a position similar to this gentleman from Oklahoma, are fond of the statement "an armed society is a polite society." For those who believe this, I ask them to ponder the recommendations of George Bernard Shaw, that the functions of law enforcement and the judicial courts be turned entirely over to the the Post Office. This was back in the day when the mail was delivered to many homes twice daily. Perhaps we should adopt GBS's suggestion but give it now to Amazon.
snailgate
Nobody believes, not even this gentleman from Oklahoma, believes in the 2nd amendment. It plainly states that the way to regulate the militia is to not infringe on the right of the people to have guns. NOBODY advocates this. Should habitual felons not have their right to bear arms infringed? Should Any individual who has the resources to do it be permitted to construct their own hydrogen bomb? Should individuals with the mental capacities of a 5-year-old child and the biological age of 25 and in good physical health, except they are blind and stone deaf, be allowed to bear a sawed off shotgun? (I know of know no federal law that prohibits such a person from voting in federal elections---perhaps that helps explain some recent events.)
OK, let's restrict 'arms' to devices that our founding fathers in 1791 would have been familiar with. Who would say society, even the Jacksonian yeoman farmer society ideal in Virginia in 1791, after the Bill of Rights had been approved, would say there should be no government objection to giving a petard into the hand of such an individual described lastly above, particularly when they were holding a burning stick in the other hand?
Nobody REALLY wants the 2nd amendment, strictly applied.
But I believe Mr. Stewart is also onto something. The curve of wrongful deaths by firearms in increasing, and so is the curve of governmental regulation of such devices. Is there adequate objective data to show the second of these curves is reducing the first? I believe there is some such data that shows the limitation on magazine capacity was followed by a desirable downturn of deaths from 'assault rifle-style' shootings, but not the overall firearms deaths.
That is also my belief, not an assertion of fact.
Many Americans with a position similar to this gentleman from Oklahoma, are fond of the statement "an armed society is a polite society." For those who believe this, I ask them to ponder the recommendations of George Bernard Shaw, that the functions of law enforcement and the judicial courts be turned entirely over to the the Post Office. This was back in the day when the mail was delivered to many homes twice daily. Perhaps we should adopt GBS's suggestion but give it now to Amazon.
snailgate
- Bicycle Bill
- Posts: 9030
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
- Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Why is it that these Republican gun wackos always seem to remember the second part of the amendment — 'shall not be infringed' — but manage to completely ignore the first part ... the section that refers to a
W E L L ‒ R E G U L A T E D
militia??
Or did 'REGULATE' have an entirely different meaning in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, than it does now?
I have no problem with 'regulating' the ownership of firearms in much the same manner as the way we regulate things like drivers, pilots, doctors, lawyers, aircraft, and even bartenders — registration of the appropriate device (such as cars, trucks, airplanes boats — and yes, guns) along with training in and demonstrated proficiency of the requisite skills pursuant to the activity before a license is granted.
-"BB"-
W E L L ‒ R E G U L A T E D
militia??
Or did 'REGULATE' have an entirely different meaning in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, than it does now?
I have no problem with 'regulating' the ownership of firearms in much the same manner as the way we regulate things like drivers, pilots, doctors, lawyers, aircraft, and even bartenders — registration of the appropriate device (such as cars, trucks, airplanes boats — and yes, guns) along with training in and demonstrated proficiency of the requisite skills pursuant to the activity before a license is granted.
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Of course it did. "Well-regulated" in that case meant "properly-equipped" and "in proper working order." (Even now, figuring out powder loads for a gun is usually called "regulating" the charge.)Or did 'REGULATE' have an entirely different meaning in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, than it does now?
- Bicycle Bill
- Posts: 9030
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
- Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Did you have prunes for breakfast? Because that's a pretty good load of shit there.Jarlaxle wrote: ↑Sat Mar 04, 2023 4:31 pmOf course it did. "Well-regulated" in that case meant "properly-equipped" and "in proper working order." (Even now, figuring out powder loads for a gun is usually called "regulating" the charge.)Or did 'REGULATE' have an entirely different meaning in 1791, when the Bill of Rights was adopted, than it does now?
Regulating the charge = controlling the charge, not "well-equipping" the charge or "properly working" the charge.
I'm sorry, you're wrong — but thanks for playing! Johnny, what do we have today for Mr. Jarlaxle?
......Well, Bill, all our departing contestants today will receive a FREE COPY of the U.S. Constitution, along with the latest edition of Merriam-Webster's New Collegiate Dictionary, so they can look up those pesky words like the one that tripped him up today... along with our thanks for playing "Are You Stupid Enough To Be A Republican Congressman?"
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
- Econoline
- Posts: 9563
- Joined: Sun Apr 18, 2010 6:25 pm
- Location: DeKalb, Illinois...out amidst the corn, soybeans, and Republicans
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Just about every word or phrase in that sentence means something other than its commonly understood 20th/21st century meaning.A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed.
"regulated"
"well regulated"
"well-regulated"
"Militia"
"militia"
"necessary"
"security"
"free"
"State"
"state"
"free State"
"free state"
"security of a free state"
"the people"
"keep"
"bear"
"keep and bear"
"Arms"
"arms"
"keep and bear arms"
...and last but not least "infringed" [/list]
The definition, meaning, intent, implication, and significance of each of these terms can be (and has been) debated ad infinitum. It's way beyond about time to *AMEND* the Second Amendment for the purpose of clarifying its meaning(s) and settling at least some of the arguments.
People who are wrong are just as sure they're right as people who are right. The only difference is, they're wrong.
— God @The Tweet of God
— God @The Tweet of God
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
I agree. I would like something like this for a start:
No private citizen shall possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Congress and the States shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear any arms not thus prohibited; anyone convicted of high crimes may be proscribed from possessing firearms as part of his or her criminal sentence.
Under no circumstances shall "chemical weapons" include firearms of any type, or any weapon that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20757
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
I'll have one of these, pleaseJarlaxle wrote: ↑Sun Mar 05, 2023 3:56 amI agree. I would like something like this for a start:
No private citizen shall possess nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons. Congress and the States shall make no law abridging the right to keep and bear any arms not thus prohibited; anyone convicted of high crimes may be proscribed from possessing firearms as part of his or her criminal sentence.
Under no circumstances shall "chemical weapons" include firearms of any type, or any weapon that uses a chemical reaction to propel a projectile.
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Those are nice to have if you do a lot of driving through high crime neighborhoods.
- Bicycle Bill
- Posts: 9030
- Joined: Thu Dec 03, 2015 1:10 pm
- Location: Surrounded by Trumptards in Rockland, WI – a small rural village in La Crosse County
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
The drawbacks, though, are that there's no trunk space, works best with a crew of at least two (four if you plan on using the oversized breechloader), and the gas mileage sucks. And it's a long way to the dealership when you need service under warranty.
-"BB"-
Yes, I suppose I could agree with you ... but then we'd both be wrong, wouldn't we?
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Yes, we should all have the right to keep and bear tanks. What could possibly go wrong?
https://youtu.be/Q6UBW0wrB18
https://youtu.be/Q6UBW0wrB18
For me, it is far better to grasp the Universe as it really is than to persist in delusion, however satisfying and reassuring.
~ Carl Sagan
~ Carl Sagan
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
It's perfectly legal to own a tank-indeed, there is a place in Hudson where you can DRIVE one. Even now...if the weapons are inoperative or removed, there are very few restrictions. There is a guy in the Lake George area who has a registered, street-driven armored car, I think either a Crosley Saladin or a Daimler Ferret.
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20757
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
OK so the tank is good . . . provided the arms are removed (or "weapons" for those who don't like to remove "arms")
So can I have one of these please and thank you? (er . . . not the soldier)
Doesn't seem to violate the very sensible "nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons" restriction on the 2nd Amendment. So it's OK, right?
So can I have one of these please and thank you? (er . . . not the soldier)
Doesn't seem to violate the very sensible "nuclear, chemical, or biological weapons" restriction on the 2nd Amendment. So it's OK, right?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Those are nice to have if you do a lot of walking through high crime neighborhoods.
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Go for it. They're expensive, impractical, and probably more dangerous to you than anyone else, but sure. Be aware, you will need a CDL with haz-mat endorsement and an appropriately-marked and permitted vehicle (Explosives 1.2, I think) to transport it.
I noted "weapons removed" when noting that EVEN NOW there actually aren't many limits on armored vehicles.
I noted "weapons removed" when noting that EVEN NOW there actually aren't many limits on armored vehicles.
-
- Posts: 4090
- Joined: Fri Feb 12, 2016 5:35 pm
- Location: Near Bear, Delaware
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
But I believe the air-rifle has been declared by the Pope (perhaps 400 years ago) as sinful and unholy. As I remember it, mostly because it was silent and sneaky.
As I recall my military indoctrination in the early 60's, the most dangerous weapon was the motivated, human imagination.
snailgate
As I recall my military indoctrination in the early 60's, the most dangerous weapon was the motivated, human imagination.
snailgate
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20757
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
So there are at least two instances where you accept restrictions on the right to bear arms other than the three you previously stated were the only acceptable restrictions?
That's good. Thank you
(Tanks a lot?)
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
I have no idea what you're trying to say.MajGenl.Meade wrote: ↑Mon Mar 06, 2023 6:20 amSo there are at least two instances where you accept restrictions on the right to bear arms other than the three you previously stated were the only acceptable restrictions?
That's good. Thank you
(Tanks a lot?)
- MajGenl.Meade
- Posts: 20757
- Joined: Sun Apr 25, 2010 8:51 am
- Location: Groot Brakrivier
- Contact:
Re: The Problem with Republican 2nd Amendment Logic
Hardly surprising. You endorse the removal of all restrictions on "arms" other than nuclear, chemical and something else (can't be bothered to scroll down). But you appear to accept that restrictions on the ownership of tank guns and bazookas is reasonable.
Or are you wishing that we were able to obtain and legally use such arms?
Or are you wishing that we were able to obtain and legally use such arms?
For Christianity, by identifying truth with faith, must teach-and, properly understood, does teach-that any interference with the truth is immoral. A Christian with faith has nothing to fear from the facts