Gun Control & RKBA
Related: About this forumWould publishing the personal information...
...of those with CC permits make the permits themselves an oxymoron?
= new reply since forum marked as read
Highlight:
NoneDon't highlight anything
5 newestHighlight 5 most recent replies
Oneka
(653 posts)The holder of such a list still has to identify the person's on it, and then only has a 50/50 shot at knowing, whether that person is currently carrying. If any harm came to a carrier , as a result of this info
being published, then a lawsuit with a fat payday for Damages, is appropriate.
> If any harm came to a carrier , as a result of this info being published, then a lawsuit with a fat payday for Damages, is appropriate.
Nothing happened to O'Liely after he encouraged some repig to murder Dr. Tiller. Of course, since the rule in America is always IOKIYAR and ok for repigs to break laws, I suppose you might be right.
Oneka
(653 posts)Civil action should be allowed to move forward in cases like this one.
could you translate that into some form of English please?
Oneka
(653 posts)Publishes my personal information, and I or my family are harmed as a result of that publication, I should be able to sue that organization for damages.
I will, after you translate "WTF?" into some form of English. 
WTF
From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Jump to: navigation, search
Look up WTF or whiskey tango foxtrot in Wiktionary, the free dictionary.
WTF may refer to:
Contents
[hide] 1 Slang
2 Media and entertainment
3 Music
4 Organizations
5 Television
6 Other
7 See also
Slang
"what the fuck", (sometimes "whiskey tango foxtrot," initialism from the NATO phonetic alphabet, used as a euphemism)
Now I can say, "You don't understand my post? WTF!!!"
(hint: if you're having problems, try searching for "republicans cause murder of Dr. Tiller", or "O'Reilly caused murder of Dr. Tiller"
rl6214
(8,142 posts)or what ever you put. It's like the others that write about "murikans" or "jeebus" or some of the other juvenile crap I see posted here.
I thought O'Liely was a well-known nick for O'Reilly (the king of clowns).
Seriously, don't jump down my throat and insult me ("post that in English" if you have a specific objection to my (or anybody's) posts. Specific is the key word here. Your reply to me was very non-specific in its tone. And if you give me something like that to play with, I'll have lots of fun! 
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)...as many others have, that the social benefit of concealed carry is not to the carrier but to everyone by virtue of the anonymity of those carrying.
In four states there is no possibility of a list of permit holders as no permit is required to carry concealed. The trust between the state and the holders of permits is the essence of what benefits everyone. It's not who is on the list that is a compromise of that trust but more who is not. Sure those with permits may be targeted by some criminals but I would suggested that their homes would be more of a target than they would be personally. A criminal would be more likely to find a handgun there. We don't need to give gun thieves any help.
The fourth amendment is still in place. Publishing private information is a violation. Period!
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)No one mentioned "more" guns, only carry permit publication.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)
safeinOhio
(35,468 posts)any permit is a public action. Therefore, public information. Voter list and party are public. Drivers license information can be on file and public. Building permits.
Not that is a good or bad thing, it's just that it is an open option to get or not to get a CCW. I lean toward all public actions being open to the public.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)Is getting a SSN a public action?
safeinOhio
(35,468 posts)I see nothing wrong with public records of who has signed up for or collects SS. Amounts, or address is a different matter. But, who in on the rolls is not. Your employer gets access to your enrollment.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)Getting a government permit is a public action. All public actions should be open to the public (transparent).
I'm glad to live in a state that does not require a permission slip from the government to put on a jacket when the evening cools off. I require no more government action to exercise the right to bear arms than I do to exercise my other protected rights. Therefore, there is no list upon which my name could appear.
safeinOhio
(35,468 posts)mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)Seems that the government has some compelling interest in making sure I only vote once per election, hence the list.
The government does not have a compelling interest in making sure I only have the right not to self-incriminate once, or can only speak freely one time, or can only own one gun or carry it one place. Therefore, there is no registration for those rights, and no list with my name to make sure I can practice them.
safeinOhio
(35,468 posts)if you can legally carry a concealed weapon. By the time a cop runs your license, he knows.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)The few police I know personally have told me that they approach every traffic stop as if the person is armed. Presuming that the officer was already going to approach you as if you were armed, how is anyone's safety improved by the officer knowing that you may or may not be carrying, but you are licensed to do so?
safeinOhio
(35,468 posts)You didn't want to be on any list.
mvccd1000
(1,534 posts)Sorry, my answers were not focused in that direction.
I don't so much mind lists, and as my first reply said, I agree that government interactions should be transparent. I don't think the ability to exercise constitutionally protected rights should necessarily be on a list, though. (Voting as on obvious exception, as you can only exercise that right once per election.)
I don't think any citizens should be on a list of who spoke on the corner about a certain political issue, or who protested another issue, or who exercised their right to be free from search and seizure, or even who exercised their second amendment rights.
In that vein, I can say I'm glad to live in a state that does not require my presence on such a list to exercise my rights.
BiggJawn
(23,051 posts)I'd be more worried about the anti-gun loonies standing in front of my house with bullhorns and signs.
We'd wind up being the same kind of target Dr. Tiller was.
> We'd wind up being the same kind of target Dr. Tiller was.
Tell me how a gun could defend against a sneak-attack sniper-attack, which is what killed Tiller.
I'll wait. This promises to be an answer FILLED with magic!
Only magic here is your dancing strawman.
> Only magic here is your dancing strawman.
Oh, so now you're calling the documented facts of what happened to Tiller a "strawman".
What a laugh!
...just your usage of the event in attempting to make some hysterical point. Clutch those pearls a little tighter if you can.
Its seems you only have rhetorical flourishes to cover up your lack of response to my point. So, keep firing away. If you need more, look at the website "www.rhetorical_devices_to_use_when_losing_an_argument.com".
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)That is a great point. If the idea behind publishing the names of CCW permit holders is that the public should know who is carrying firearms, then they should just go to open carry, that way everyone knows without having to consult a database first.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)That's the point, the "right to know who is carrying guns" is a myth. It's not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
No such right exists.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> It's not mentioned in the Bill of Rights.
Nor is the "right to any firearm".
The 2nd Amendment is about the Militia, not about lassez-faire gun ownership. The phrase "well-regulated" is discussed at length in Federalist Paper #29, and it means "trained like an army". I can't help it if crummy SCOTUS members in the past have mis-interpreted it, just like the current court is completely insane (at least 5 or the 9)
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)gun.
... completely insane? Produce the psychiatric evaluations stating this, please.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> In order to be well regulated
They also need to be "trained like an army is", in the words of Federalist Paper #29. That doesn't happen, so my point stands.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)How would you know who is and who is not well trained?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> How would you know who is and who is not well trained?
That's simple - produce the certificate from the "trained like an army" Federal Agency where you got "well-regulated" (in the words of the Founding Fathers, as explained in Federalist Paper #29)
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)from both the Army and the Air Force.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Federal Agency?
Would ROTC be considered Federal?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Would ROTC be considered Federal?
Depends on how closely they hewed to the "well-regulated" condition of the 2nd Amendment, which, of course would have to be hammered out by the Legislature.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)thank you very much.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Seeing as how there are no laws on the books about what "well-regulated" means - which would of course have to pass "originalist" conservative muster & hew closely to Federalist Paper #29 to get thru the SCOTUS - your self-congratulation is EXTREMELY premature.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)-I- am very Well Regulated.
You need to go take another bong hit.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I'm glad you're in favor of self-judged standards. I'm a brain surgeon (as assessed by myself), and I hope I have a chance to fix your brain tumor.
You need to go take another hit of meth.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)You are wrong, and you proved it by making endless assertions with no support. Plus you used the old standby of a personal insult.
Thus, you are wrong & I am right.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)and NO. You are not invited to come inspect me or my castle.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Your self-proclamations are worthless. If you really believe in them, are you ready for me to operate on your brain tumor? I am the GREATEST brain surgeon in history!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Mr. Yawn.
you are boring me.
You are conflating things about which you know nothing.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I like how you throw out those unproven assertions & unsupported accusations. Keep thinking you know more than me, I'm sure it makes you feel good about yourself.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)of course, you know that.
GreenStormCloud
(12,072 posts)I spent a year in Vietnam. Does that count?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)You think I write laws?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)psychiatric evaluations as proof for your slanderous accusations that members of the SC are insane . . .
I will wait.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> psychiatric evaluations as proof for your slanderous accusations that members of the SC are insane
Postings on anonymous chatboards are not considered slander, although most likely the repig-appointed insane nuts on the current SCOTUS would disagree, and upset precedents for the n-th time if they ruled on the matter.
Any other problems with what the Founding Fathers wrote?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts) 
eqfan592
(5,963 posts) Right back at you, ace. I see you missed the point!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)easy to see how I go from bongbong to the obvious bong hits analogy . . .
but, how you got from to Tuesday Afternoon to a meth reference . . .
I am beginning to understand how your reading comprhension skills (or lack thereof) work.
No wonder you have the Constitution and the Federalist Papers so conflated. 
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> asy to see how I go from bongbong to the obvious bong hits analogy
Oh, the word "bong" doesn't mean anything but "bong hits"? You should probably buy a dictionary.
> t, how you got from to Tuesday Afternoon to a meth reference
Just as easy as the spurious connection between "bongbong" and "bong hits". Meth is consumed by many people on Tuesday afternoon.
> I am beginning to understand how your reading comprhension skills (or lack thereof) work.
And I am seeing how gun-lovers usually end up with personal insults after their NRA Talking Points are debunked.
> No wonder you have the Constitution and the Federalist Papers so conflated.
More mind-reading. Show me a post of mine where I equate them, other than to say the Founding Fathers were involved with the writing of both.
Your score: Zero for 4.
Can you have the NRA send out better debaters?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)bravo.well done.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)"Masterbater"!
WOW THAT IS A SERIOUSLY FUNNY QUIP!
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)...for you that you don't like reality. Denial is always pleasant, though.
Have a nice day.
Hoyt
(54,770 posts)It's always humorous to hear the pro-guns-in-every-corner-of-society-culture explain that pesky little phrase.
Maybe appointment of another objective justice will solve a lot of problems in this country.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)to quote Norman Goldman: "judges are politicians in robes."
Not a binary function. Some are more objective than others. From the record of decisions handed down in the last 40 years, to be at least, say 30% objective, you have to be appointed by a Democratic president. The last time a vaguely objective judge was appointed by a repig was Souter in 1990. But since Eisenhower, only 3 repig-appointed justices WEREN'T ideological tools.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)with what you want.
Sorry, the real world doesn't world does not work that way.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> o they are objective if they agree with what you want.
Your mind-reading attempts are wonderful! But I would ask for your money back from the school where you learned them, as your accuracy is running at 0%.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)just reading between the lines.
> just reading between the lines.
Get a refund from the school where you went to "learn" that, too.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)take a nap
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)constitutional law and history.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> get a double refund where you learned constitutional law and history.
I never claimed to be an expert, or for that matter to have learned anything on the the subject. Just using common sense, reading the writings of the Founding Fathers, and staying away from dogma like the NRA-approved re-definition of the 2nd Amendment.
If you have a problem with what the Founding Fathers wrote, and prefer the NRA re-writing of history, just say so.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You wanna point everyone to where we can learn about that culture or is this just another of your made up societies you like to bloviate about on the internet?
Only ones I ever see say anything about guns in every corner of society are you anti-gun zealots
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> you anti-gun zealots
Yeah, asking for non-insane gun control laws and limits on gun ownership is "anti-gun zealotry".
I still don't know why, using the NRA re-definition of the 2nd Amendment, I can't own flame-throwers, tanks, nukes, jet fighters, etc. When, oh when, will the NRA REALLY start sticking up for the 2nd Amendment? (
since you pro-gun zealots won't get it)
The NRA are a bunch of traitors to the 2nd Amendment!
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Are members of a militia "well-regulated"?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)If there were, would they be people?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)a Militia of One?
How many does it take to form a Militia?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)a group of like minded individuals with a common objective. It seems to me that the term describes a certain type of relationship rather than an individual point of view.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)> Learn what "well-regulated" actually meant at that time then get back with it
That Talking Point was demolished centuries ago when Federalist Paper #29 was published. Read it, and learn something other than NRA Talking Points.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Why don't you post what "well regulated" really means? Can't do it, can you.
> Can't do it, can you?
Nah Nah, yes I can!
http://www.foundingfathers.info/federalistpapers/fed29.htm
rl6214
(8,142 posts)"It referred to the property of something being in proper working order."
http://constitution.org/cons/wellregu.htm
Yes, and Federalist Paper #29 specifies what "proper working order" means in reference to militias.
Thanks for agreeing with me, and understanding how the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership. You finally get it!
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Why are the NRA such traitors to the 2nd Amendment, and only care about guns of certain calibers?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)The NRA is a corporation that produces ideology for mass consumption. Your hyperbolic deflection should be embarrassing you by now.
Are the members of a militia people?
Can you deal with the issue outside of the ideology you plucked off the shelf like a bag of chips?
Your post makes no sense. It doesn't address any point I made, nor does it make anything other than assertions.
Maybe you can handle a sentence like "Colorless green ideas sleep furiously" better than a discussion on guns.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Everyone can read this sub thread.
Are the members of a militia people?
I know you're going for some crazy GOTCHA! after this post, but I'll bite, if nothing else to see what the Talking Point de jour is.
Yes, members of militias are people.
Next question is mine to ask you, although I am interested in your GOTCHA! response, so go ahead and type it in.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Having chased you through a dozen posts to get you to admit the obvious, my point has long since been made.
And my point has long been made too, that the 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.
In fact, my point was made many decades before I was born!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)John F. Kennedy: "By calling attention to 'a well regulated militia,' 'the security of the nation,' and the right of each citizen 'to keep and bear arms,' our founding fathers recognized the essentially civilian nature of our economy… The Second Amendment still remains an important declaration of our basic civilian-military relationships in which every citizen must be ready to participate in the defense of his country. For that reason I believe the Second Amendment will always be important."
bongbong
(5,436 posts)I'll stick with the Founding Fathers and their definitions for controversial phrases in the Constitution. After all, they wrote the Constitution. An excerpt from a speech by JFK is flowery phrases for a particular audience, and I'd have to see the whole thing to see what context it was in.
So .... what is your point?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Let me guess. Only militias should have access to firearms?
Did you know that I have already been wrong once and you missed it?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)My point was explicitly pointed out in this very sub-thread (#114). I even used the phrase, "my point has ...".
rrneck
(17,671 posts)That wasn't a point, it was hyperbole.
Actually, "shall not be infringed" is the very definition of "laissez faire gun ownership".
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> That wasn't a point, it was hyperbole.
OK, in that spirit of "discussion", all your posts are hyperbole and are worthless.
But continue to entertain me. Post more of your drivel.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Can't stand getting busted.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)That wasn't very entertaining. Don't you have a few dozen "BRAND NEW! GUARANTIED TO SHOOT DOWN THE OPPOSITION!" Talking Points from the NRA to parrot?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)why don't you trot back to the Federalist papers and find something else to embarrass yourself with?
I don't mind fish in a barrel, just try not to make them catfish.
rl6214
(8,142 posts)You can't bear a tank or jet fighter.
> Learn what bearing arms really means
Oh, you mean like the under-10 pound Panzerfaust?
Why isn't the NRA DEMANDING our rights to own RPGs??? Even 70 year old RPG technology fits the NRA-approved version of the 2nd Amendment!
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Did the minute men bear cannons during the revolutionary war? No, the bore muskets. Bearing a cannon would be the equvilent to bearing an rpg.
Oh, that's a good one. So that also means that only muskets can be sold these days.
Don't you hate it when you contradict yourself?
rl6214
(8,142 posts)Don't YOU hate it when you look like a fool?
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)I have to conclude he likes it.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)bongbong
(5,436 posts)> No, it's commonly accepted that the foot soldier carries the modern weapon of THE FOOT SOLDIER
You mean like most of the German Army carried by hand after Jan 1945 - the Panzerfaust RPG?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Even if the second amendment specifically said you had to be in a militia to keep and bear arms, the fact is, the militias of the founders' day no longer exist.
Does this mean that the right of the people to keep and bear arms also ceased to exist?
In order to answer this question, we have to agree on what the purpose of the decentralized military system the militias made was to serve.
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)rrneck
(17,671 posts)They remind me of home. Of course, so does all the stupid.
*sigh*
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)...you can still hear them...
I find it's quite restful. It's almost peaceful.
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Are members of a militia "well-regulated"?
rrneck
(17,671 posts)Are they people?
I trust you have another question prepared.
In the spirit of your answer, there is no people.
I trust you have another non-answer prepared, to go along with your nonsense "questions".
rrneck
(17,671 posts)there were over three hundred million people in the United States.
Are the members of a militia people?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Your original answer was an unsupported assertion that "there are no militias". If you can prove that, then we can get into semantics.
Are the members of a militia people?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)The militias in the founders' day were a decentralized, state-controlled military force, designed to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, a federal standing army.
Those militias were usurped in 1903 with the passage of the Dick Act. They became the National Guard, which is now a reserve and adjunct to the standing army, not a counter to it.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> he militias in the founders' day were a decentralized, state-controlled military force, designed to eliminate the need for, or at least be able to counter, a federal standing army.
That's not my problem, and it doesn't have anything to do with my points. If the USA has a giant, only VAGUELY Constitutional standing army, that problem should be fixed. The extreme distaste that many of the Founding Fathers had for standing armies is not questioned by any historian.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I was addressing your statement, "Your original answer was an unsupported assertion that "there are no militias". If you can prove that, then we can get into semantics."
And that statement is incorrect. The militia system that existed during the founders' day was dismantled with the passage of the Dick Act in 1903. It was undertaken ostensibly because the state-run militias systems had run into disrepair. Militias were expensive to train and equip, and so some states did so better than others. Additionally, people had ceased to show up for regular militia drill and many had become little more than social gatherings rather than military training exercises.
Thus the United States could not undertake foreign expeditions efficiently (which was probably one of of the motivations of the founders. Imagine how many foreign entanglements we might have avoided through history if all the states had to equally agree on supporting them.)
The Dick Act dismantled the militia system and created the Organized Militia (the National Guard), and the Unorganized Militia (all able-bodied men aged 17-45 not otherwise in the Organized Militia). Some states sill retain wording in their constitutions to provide for state militias, though I am unaware of any formal state-run militia training programs.
But the fact is that the militias as they existed in the founders' day - state-run military institutions designed to eliminate or counter federal military power - no longer exist.
If the USA has a giant, only VAGUELY Constitutional standing army, that problem should be fixed.
It should indeed. But until that time, the second amendment still reserves the right to keep and bear arms to the people.
I am convinced this was intentional. The second amendment reads:
"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."
It would have been trivial to say that the right of the state, or the right of the militia to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. But the founders did not do that. They said the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. No doubt this was because they envisioned the possibility of the institutions of government becoming corrupt, but saw the people as the ultimate repository of force to protect their freedom.
So your problem, and the problem for everyone who keeps and bears arms, is that even though the first clause of the second amendment no longer applies, it does not negate the second clause.
This is why the argument that people often float that citizens can only bear arms in relation to service in a militia is wrong. Even if it were the intent of the second amendment (which it isn't), it doesn't matter because the militias spoken about in the second amendment no longer exist.
Now, if you are going to say that because those militias no longer exist, the right to keep and bear arms also no longer exists, that is another subject to be defended.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Per your post, if the militia no longer exists, then the 2nd Amendment has NO meaning anymore. IOW, the 2nd Amendment can't be used as a defense for laissez-faire gun ownership.
Steven's minority decision in the infamous Heller case (radical activist conservative judges overturning precedent) pointed this out most succinctly.
Most of the gun-adorers in this thread have let my clearly- and repeatedly-posted point fly right over their heads in their rush to judgement: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.
There, I said it again, maybe for the 10th time. Hopefully some of you will read it this time.
If somebody can show me a post of mine that says that guns should be outlawed, feel free. You won't be able to find one, except in your fervid imaginations.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)laissez-faire gun ownership? Given the number of state, local, and federal regulations, I would hardly call it laizzez-faire
bongbong
(5,436 posts)And the rest of the world calls it "laissez-faire gun ownership". The number, and strictness, of laws in any other country (except Somalia and a few other libertarian "paradises" dwarfs the laws we have here.
gejohnston
(17,502 posts)and some of our state laws are stricter than some of those countries.
Somalia has stricter laws than many US states. Not that it matters, because most people in Somalia can't afford a bag of rice let alone a gun.
Japan calls commercial whaling "research", so what?
> and some of our state laws are stricter than some of those countries.
Evidence for this claim, please. Remember that one set of state laws in the USA is not comparable to the laws in a whole country, so look for the "most stringent" laws in a state and then compare them to the "most stringent" laws in a province of another country.
You got a lotta work to do, and since you won't be able to prove it anyway, you might as well just acknowledge I'm right.
> Japan calls commercial whaling "research", so what?
Ohhhhh, a genuine Red Herring! I'm impressed!
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)More than half of all the results of a google search for this term point to DU. Try again.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)What is it you want changed? Be specific, identify the problem and explain what laws should change.
Also, if you could define "laissez-faire gun ownership" this may also be helpful.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Refer to my post #141.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)I'm not in a rush. Take your time.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Perhaps you could direct us to another one of your posts that supposedly answers the question?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Read the thread, and look for "bongbong"s posts.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)If I missed it, I apologize. Perhaps you could direct us to an actual post number?
Thanks.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Refer to post #141
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I've asked him what he thinks the second amendment means, and he is unable to answer thus far except to say that he doesn't think it means what I've said it means.
And I also have asked him to define "laissez-faire gun ownership", without reply.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)Often those who don't like something base the dislike on an impression which has not much to do with logic or the big picture.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I disagree vehemently. The militias, made up of the people, were to serve as a way to prevent forceful tyranny by the central federal government.
The militias have been usurped by that same central federal government. This does not invalidate the rest of the sentiment or rationale behind the second amendment.
It simply means there is no longer an organized mechanism (the militias) by which to enforce it. But the people still retain the military power to protect their interests.
This is exactly what the founders intended. There is a reason why every single iteration of the second amendment specifically enumerates firearm ownership as a right of the people, and not a right of the states or the militias or any other branch of government.
And in fact, a proposal to insert the words "for the common defence" next to the words "bear arms" was defeated in Congress. Which indicates that not only is this a right of the people, it is not restrained only for exercising as a collective!. It is an individual right.
Most of the gun-adorers in this thread have let my clearly- and repeatedly-posted point fly right over their heads in their rush to judgement: The 2nd Amendment has nothing to do with laissez-faire gun ownership.
There, I said it again, maybe for the 10th time. Hopefully some of you will read it this time.
That's because need to define what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".
Also it's because you have not stated what you think the second amendment is actually supposed to do.
If somebody can show me a post of mine that says that guns should be outlawed, feel free. You won't be able to find one, except in your fervid imaginations.
The problem is that we have heard these code words like "laissez-faire gun ownership" before. Which basically means "hands-off gun ownership". Usually this is code for "you can't have unregulated gun ownership", which, when pressed, usually means the speaker supports onerously-regulated gun ownership.
We don't have laissez-faire gun ownership in this country. There are a host of laws and regulations that govern firearm possession. If we had liassez-fair gun ownership I'd be able to buy them through the mail out of the Sears catalog like my father did, and I wouldn't have to get government permission before buying one.
So you'll have to provide some details as to what constitutes "laissez-faire gun ownership and how you would change it.
X_Digger
(18,585 posts)He's had his hat handed to him multiple times, to the same result.
http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=102&topic_id=4290943&mesg_id=4291998
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I can't believe I'm having to have the same conversation. Well done.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> The problem is that we have heard these code words like "laissez-faire gun ownership" before. Which basically means "hands-off gun ownership". Usually this is code for "you can't have unregulated gun ownership", which, when pressed, usually means the speaker supports onerously-regulated gun ownership.
So your objections to my post boil down to, basically, what you imagined I meant. Fervid imaginations, hard at work!
> So you'll have to provide some details as to what constitutes "laissez-faire gun ownership and how you would change it.
Refer to my post #141.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I don't have any objections yet, because you haven't explained what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".
And there are no answers in post #141.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Try reading #141 a little slower.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)For someone who is supposedly busy you have plenty of time for typing "asdf" followed by meaningless reading suggestions.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)It's clear why expanded gun control has moved in the direction it has in recent years- just look at the level of advocacy it attracts...
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> It's clear why expanded gun control has moved in the direction it has in recent years- just look at the level of
If you show me where I advocated greater gun control, let me know. Just put the post number where I advocated for it.
Fervid imaginations running wild!
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)...save for the notion that "The NRA is wrong about the Second Amendment and I, bongbong, am right". You're hardly alone in your certitude- the Gungeon has
attracted many a never-published, never-admitted-to-the-bar self-proclaimed "Constitutional scholar"...
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> attracted many a never-published, never-admitted-to-the-bar self-proclaimed "Constitutional scholar".
Show me where I said I was never admitted to the bar, or where I proclaimed myself a "Constitutional scholar". I'll wait for your reply.
Secondly, if you want to find a list of people who think the NRA is wrong and are more or less expected to be "Constitutional scholars", you can start with Justice Steven's dissent to Heller. Then you can look up the thousands of articles written by law professors opposing NRA re-writes of the Constitution.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I'm sure with your fine (and possibly admitted to the bar) legal mind, a thorough and incisive fisking should be easy peasy for you...
bongbong
(5,436 posts)The NRA would feel threatened, and send goons to "legally" murder me via SYG laws.
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)I get the feeling you are either a somewhat incompetent attorney or a fair to middling AI.
If the latter, my compliments to your programmers...
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> I get the feeling you are either a somewhat incompetent attorney or a fair to middling AI.
And I get the feeling you're a guy posting things to DU under NRA orders, to try to move gun discussions right-ward. Have a nice (pay) day!
rl6214
(8,142 posts)no matter how many times you repeat that question.
Federalist Paper #29 was published centuries ago. Try to keep up with current events!
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)All 9 justices agreed that the right to keep and bear arms is an individual right irrespective of membership in any organization, such as the militia.
Even President Obama agrees with this position.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)So you agree that laissez-faire gun ownership (of course only of NRA-approved types of arms) has nothing to do with the 2nd Amendment?
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)I don't know what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".
The second amendment is about enumerating the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, to be used to kill people who threaten the security of free states, and, by extension, themselves.
The militias - a decentralized military force designed to counter that of the central federal government - no longer exist. No doubt this is why the founders enumerated it as a right of the people and not a right of the militias, nor the state.
The people still have the right to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, for the same reasons as the founders intended.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)> The second amendment is about enumerating the right of the people to keep and bear military-grade small arms suitable for infantry use, to be used to kill people who threaten the security of free states, and, by extension, themselves.
Wow! Which Founding Father wrote that? I especially like the "military-grade" phrase. Sounds like the "Founding Father" Nathanial Robert Allen (NRA to his friends) wrote that one.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Wow! Which Founding Father wrote that?
I've typed on this topic so many times I'm just not up for it this morning. There are lots of supporting period citations also.
I'll just leave it at this. Here is the text of the second amendment:
"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."
Questions for you to consider:
Q: How do the militias function to be necessary to the security of a free state?
A: By using military force against those who threaten it.
Q: Who would be threatening that security?
A: Other people.
I especially like the "military-grade" phrase. Sounds like the "Founding Father" Nathanial Robert Allen (NRA to his friends) wrote that one.
It's really disappointing to read this sort of thing and realize that people have such a poor grasp of the US Constitution and the second amendment in particular.
The "arms" that are spoken of for the People to keep and bear is clearly related to use in a Militia, which were the military forces of the country of the day.
So the arms being spoken of most definitely were flintlock muskets, musketoons, pistols, and similar arms of the day - all state-of-the-art military-grade hardware suitable for use in the infantry militia.
bongbong
(5,436 posts)And my research, including detailed historical accounts of the period from Articles Of Confederation to the writing of the Constitution, and the political deals that were made, and the colonial mindset among the "common" people, and the many tax revolts of that time, and the anti- and pro-Federalism, and the various letters between the Founding Fathers ...., well, the subject list I've covered is quite extensive.
After reading literally dozens of books by noted and not-so-noted historians on the subject, my conclusions of what the Founding Fathers intended is diametrically opposite from the pseudo-history & lies the NRA pumps out. I've already demonstrated on this thread, and been the victim of, the fact that when people run out of NRA Talking Points they resort to personal insults.
My work here is done. 
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)OK, so based on your research, what was the purpose of the militias?
Why were militias seen as advantageous over a standing army?
Why were the militias state-controlled rather than a central militia controlled by the federal government?
Why are militias necessary to the security of free states?
What sort of arms were the people supposed to keep and bear?
bongbong
(5,436 posts)And I've already answered so many!
After I ask a few, and get answers to them, I'll entertain answering your questions. Right now I'm a bit busy, and as I said, I've answered question after question & proven my point quite well.
Atypical Liberal
(5,412 posts)Feel free to ask away, I'll wait.
You've not provided any answers to what you feel the second amendment is intended to do, only to disagree with what you think it doesn't do.
Edit to add:
Nor have you defined what you mean by "laissez-faire gun ownership".
I have gone all through this thread now looking and have not seen these answers you say you have provided. If I've missed them I apologize - perhaps you could direct me to a post number?
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Different axe, same grind...
bongbong
(5,436 posts)Here's another one:
"Millions of Americans Passionate Defenders Of What The NRA Imagines Constitution To Be"
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)Would that be as nebulous as your definition of "laissez-faire gun ownership"?
Glassunion
(10,201 posts)Any gun, anywhere, any time for everyone shall not be infringed... Cold dead hands, go Tebow and God Bless 'Merica...
friendly_iconoclast
(15,333 posts)
Callisto32
(2,997 posts)my hands are HUGE........whoa.
discntnt_irny_srcsm
(18,638 posts)but how is that relevant?
Tuesday Afternoon
(56,912 posts)Big Guns 
