MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus:         Newsletters 
Friday, October 24, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 54.0° F  Overcast
Collapse Photo Bar

The gun thread

If it's news, but not politics, then it goes here.

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 13, 2013 10:36 am

Henry Vilas wrote:As I said before in reply to that assersion, the First Amendment says no laws are allowed to suppress the five rights mentioned. Yet reasonable laws are permitted, according to the Supreme Court. In Heller, they said the same thing about the Second.


Ok, but now will you answer the simple question?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon May 13, 2013 10:53 am

I did. Either you didn't understand my answer or you ignored it.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 20006
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 13, 2013 11:07 am

Dangerousman wrote:[Of course declaring something to be "reasonable" doesn't make it so. It's a right that "shall not be infringed" which suggests that regulations with a broad sweep such as mentioned in the article have a long uphill battle to show that they are reasonable.


Seeing as you are looking for a literal reading of shall not infringe, perhaps you can answer a question that occured to me over the weekend:

The second half of the second amendment reads
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Now I'm trying to figure out, is it the word keep or the word bear, that you think can be interpreted as purchase?
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 13, 2013 1:17 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:I did. Either you didn't understand my answer or you ignored it.


I asked you how you for the definition of the word "infringed" as you understand it. It's a simple question. Need a dictionary to help?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 13, 2013 1:20 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
Dangerousman wrote:[Of course declaring something to be "reasonable" doesn't make it so. It's a right that "shall not be infringed" which suggests that regulations with a broad sweep such as mentioned in the article have a long uphill battle to show that they are reasonable.


Seeing as you are looking for a literal reading of shall not infringe, perhaps you can answer a question that occured to me over the weekend:

The second half of the second amendment reads
the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.


Now I'm trying to figure out, is it the word keep or the word bear, that you think can be interpreted as purchase?


Both terms necessarily imply that one can obtain them, because one can neither keep nor bear something they cannot get. But if you want to be very strict about it, if one cannot purchase them then I guess they ought to be given out for free, or at least to those who cannot afford them! How do you like that idea?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 13, 2013 1:24 pm

Oh, and Henry, while you're pondering your next evasion. Let me give you another question: Do you think something can be both logically inconsistent and reasonable at the same time?
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 13, 2013 2:14 pm

Dangerousman wrote:Both terms necessarily imply that one can obtain them, because one can neither keep nor bear something they cannot get.


Not really, one can keep and hold something they already posses. Perhaps the framers of the consitution actually wanted to phase out arms among the citizenry without forced confiscation. Assuming the second half means you can buy them is about a broad of a reach as assuming the first half means you have to be in the militia to have a gun. The words just aren't there.

Dangerousman wrote:But if you want to be very strict about it, if one cannot purchase them then I guess they ought to be given out for free, or at least to those who cannot afford them! How do you like that idea?

Provided those who applied for the free weapon had to pass a criminal and psychological background check, and complete a real firearm safety/use of force training class and prove proficience with said weapon, I'd be perfectly fine with it. I'd prefer that there was a way to keep it revenue neutral.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Mon May 13, 2013 2:52 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
Not really, one can keep and hold something they already posses. Perhaps the framers of the consitution actually wanted to phase out arms among the citizenry without forced confiscation. Assuming the second half means you can buy them is about a broad of a reach as assuming the first half means you have to be in the militia to have a gun. The words just aren't there.


Okay, a couple questions in response:

1) Yes, you can keep and hold something you already possess, but are you arguing that the Constitutionally protected right doesn't extend to people who have yet to acquire arms? Do people who have yet to cast their first vote have no right to vote? If you've never been to church, have you forfeited your constitutionally protected right to attend in the future?

2) Do you have a single shred of evidence to support your statement that perhaps the framers wanted to phase out arms among the citizenry? I might say perhaps they intended for me to assume the role of King, but I don't seem to have anything to back that up.

3) Do you think there's a constitutional right to purchase anything? Food? Water? If so, show me where that appears.

4) Are you prepared to say that the Framers seriously believed that they were adding the highest legal protections of your right to free press or religion, but you have no right to get a press or build a church?

That doesn't sound like very plausible view of the Framers to me.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Mon May 13, 2013 3:22 pm

The Constitution does not guarantee a right to keep and bear a church, or keep and bear a printing press.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Mon May 13, 2013 4:00 pm

1) The right to vote is positively affirmend once you reach the legally defined age so once you are of legal age you can vote. On the other hand the First neither grants you freedom of religion, nor freedom of speech. Instead the First Amendment bars the state from taking those rights(as well as the right to assemble and petition the government) away. The first assumes you have the right already.

2) Of course I do not have any proof as it's clearly a silly statement. There is no evidence that the framers intened to end civilian purchase of firearms. That doesn't mean they wanted to protect the right constitutionally either though. If they did, it's not clarified by the Second except by a broader interpretation of the language they used.

3) 9th and 10th, and English Common Law

4) see #3

wack wack wrote:The Constitution does not guarantee a right to keep and bear a church, or keep and bear a printing press.


actually it kind of does via the 9th and 10th
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Tue May 14, 2013 8:08 am

Francis Di Domizio wrote:
wack wack wrote:The Constitution does not guarantee a right to keep and bear a church, or keep and bear a printing press.


actually it kind of does via the 9th and 10th


Actually, not really. In fact, aside from "firearms," what tangible objects are protected in and by the Constitution?
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Francis Di Domizio » Tue May 14, 2013 12:22 pm

wack wack wrote:
Francis Di Domizio wrote:
wack wack wrote:The Constitution does not guarantee a right to keep and bear a church, or keep and bear a printing press.


actually it kind of does via the 9th and 10th


Actually, not really. In fact, aside from "firearms," what tangible objects are protected in and by the Constitution?


As I said "Kinda" though I suppose it's mostly in the 9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So yes if the government has granted itself somewhere else within the constitution, the authority to regulate either what you are carrying or where you carry churches and printing presses then they can limit your ability to keep and bear either. But barring that, the 9th prevents them from creating new laws that would interfer with your church bearing rights. Of course you can always claim you are using the church as a weapon to attack free speech and viola you are good to go.

Because you are right that the only tangible objects explicitly protected by the constitution are arms.
Francis Di Domizio
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2527
Joined: Wed Apr 27, 2011 8:11 pm
Location: Milwaukee, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Tue May 14, 2013 12:27 pm

Francis Di Domizio wrote:As I said "Kinda" though I suppose it's mostly in the 9th

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.


So yes if the government has granted itself somewhere else within the constitution, the authority to regulate either what you are carrying or where you carry churches and printing presses then they can limit your ability to keep and bear either. But barring that, the 9th prevents them from creating new laws that would interfer with your church bearing rights. Of course you can always claim you are using the church as a weapon to attack free speech and viola you are good to go.

Because you are right that the only tangible objects explicitly protected by the constitution are arms.


You can worship without a church. You can relay information without a printing press. The government could legally, Constitutionally prevent the creation of either. The Constitution protects ideas, not things.

Which further underscores the idea that maybe, just maybe, arms weren't really the entire point of the Second Amendment.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gun thread

Postby Dangerousman » Tue May 14, 2013 2:29 pm

wack wack wrote:The Constitution protects ideas, not things.

Which further underscores the idea that maybe, just maybe, arms weren't really the entire point of the Second Amendment.


Wrong. The 4th Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Your house, papers and effects are real things, not just ideas. "Arms" are real things also. It's pretty clear that the constitution was meant to protect keeping and bearing actual arms, and not just the "idea of arms." If you will to protect the ends, axiomatically you protect the means to that end also, e.g., the ability to purchase them.
Dangerousman
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2292
Joined: Tue Feb 06, 2007 12:28 pm
Location: Madison, WI

Re: The gun thread

Postby wack wack » Tue May 14, 2013 2:54 pm

Dangerousman wrote:
wack wack wrote:The Constitution protects ideas, not things.

Which further underscores the idea that maybe, just maybe, arms weren't really the entire point of the Second Amendment.


Wrong. The 4th Amendment reads:

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.


Your house, papers and effects are real things, not just ideas. "Arms" are real things also. It's pretty clear that the constitution was meant to protect keeping and bearing actual arms, and not just the "idea of arms." If you will to protect the ends, axiomatically you protect the means to that end also, e.g., the ability to purchase them.


WRONG.

The Constitution protects your security in those things, it does not protect those things. You do not have a right to have a house, but if you have one you have the right to be secure in it.

There is no "axiomatically" about it.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3157
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

PreviousNext

Return to Headlines

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR
Created with flickr badge.

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar