MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Tuesday, September 23, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 71.0° F  A Few Clouds
Collapse Photo Bar

The gentrification of the second amendment.

Races for the Senate, U.S. House, etc. and other issues of national importance.

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Mean Scenester » Thu Apr 11, 2013 12:14 pm

More like Sith anagram.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:31 pm

snoqueen wrote:And once again I'm struck by the individualistic content of his message. Are we not discussing social problems that affect everybody and require societal, not just individualistic, solutions?

I'm really struck by the opposite. Personal decisions count, for everything we experience there is an individual decision that led you there. Whose hands are typing on your keyboard? Who's hair is changing color? Who eventually gets sick if you smoke too many cigarettes or don't get enough exercise? Who decides to drink Mountain Dew all day long when their doctor tells them to give up sugar and start eating healthy? Answer, the individual.

So if the bad guy on the street corner jumps out to mug you, who's life is in danger? Everyone's? Or just the individual? Who's money will he run away with - all of ours? Or just yours? Collectivism sounds great in general terms but its when you get specific that the entire ethos falls apart.

Also, I've been meaning to say, its best to avoid modernizing the perspective of people in another time. If we're going to talk about them at all we should be talking about them in context. In the case of the western world of the 1930's-1940's, the context is you could whip out a pistol at your job in a New York City office, show it off to all the guys and girls alike, test it out by shooting a pigeon perched outside the window, and probably not even get a ticket much less a complaint on your way out to vote for liberal Democrat Franklin D. Roosevelt during your lunch break. i.e., the ideas that Jews during the Holocaust would have been scared of or impossibly offended by the choice to own or keep a firearm is ridiculous. If you think about it, if the Jews hated guns so much, Hitler would have never had to ban them. Suggestions to the contrary are far from credible.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby O.J. » Fri Apr 12, 2013 2:40 pm

DRINK!
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2988
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:53 pm

Also, I've been meaning to say, its best to avoid modernizing the perspective of people in another time


Funny, that's what some people here think about the Second Amendment.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11509
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Fri Apr 12, 2013 3:57 pm

snoqueen wrote:
Also, I've been meaning to say, its best to avoid modernizing the perspective of people in another time


Funny, that's what some people here think about the Second Amendment.


Care to qualify that?
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Fri Apr 12, 2013 5:40 pm

Well, ask yourself what people were thinking of when the amendment was ratified, which was 12/15/1791. Ask yourself what type of arms were in use, ask yourself about the social/economic arrangements in the south part of the new USA which included slavery, ask yourself who the country had recently been at war with. Ask yourself about the army General Washington led, and how it was organized, and what it had recently accomplished.

Then ask yourself whether you're an originalist, like Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Here's an interesting and comparatively balanced discussion of the originalists' position:

http://www.thecourt.ca/2011/07/02/what- ... deo-games/

During [an]...oral argument about a California law that would restrict minors from buying violent video games, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito squared off on constitutional originalism. These two United States Supreme Court justices debated whether the ratifiers of the First Amendment would have included portrayals of violence in video games as protected speech. Alito wryly stated that, “What Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games”...


What Madison, or the other founders, might have thought about today's gun debate and gun laws is another question in the same ongoing discussion. (Yet other similar questions address the internet and intellectual property rights.) For my part, I think the constitution is a living document and the country deserves the chance (and the right) to update it at regular intervals to take into consideration not only technological but social changes.

Are you taking an originalist stance with regard to guns, and if so do you believe originalism should be adopted only as convenient, or consistently? And why?
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11509
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Fri Apr 12, 2013 6:32 pm

When the Whiskey Rebellion began (citizens taking up arms to protest taxation), George Washington as president road at the head of the U.S. Army in suppressing the uprising. How's that for one of our Founders interpretation of the Second Amendment?
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19896
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Stebben84 » Fri Apr 12, 2013 7:11 pm

But your history lesson doesn't include the Nazis.

DRINK. I am.
Stebben84
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 4849
Joined: Thu Mar 02, 2006 12:59 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Apr 13, 2013 9:14 am

Then there was Shay's Rebellion, when disgruntled Revolutionary War vets took up arms. In that case, the state of Massachusetts raised a militia to help put down the rebellion. This happened when the federal government was organized under the Articles of Confederation. Later, after the Constitution was ratified, the clauses "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State" were included in the Second Amendment.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19896
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:15 pm

snoqueen wrote:Well, ask yourself what people were thinking of when the amendment was ratified, which was 12/15/1791. Ask yourself what type of arms were in use, ask yourself about the social/economic arrangements in the south part of the new USA which included slavery, ask yourself who the country had recently been at war with. Ask yourself about the army General Washington led, and how it was organized, and what it had recently accomplished.

Then ask yourself whether you're an originalist, like Justices Scalia and Thomas.

Here's an interesting and comparatively balanced discussion of the originalists' position:

http://www.thecourt.ca/2011/07/02/what- ... deo-games/

During [an]...oral argument about a California law that would restrict minors from buying violent video games, Justices Antonin Scalia and Samuel A. Alito squared off on constitutional originalism. These two United States Supreme Court justices debated whether the ratifiers of the First Amendment would have included portrayals of violence in video games as protected speech. Alito wryly stated that, “What Justice Scalia wants to know is what James Madison thought about video games”...


For my part, I think the constitution is a living document and the country deserves the chance (and the right) to update it at regular intervals to take into consideration not only technological but social changes.

Are you taking an originalist stance with regard to guns, and if so do you believe originalism should be adopted only as convenient, or consistently? And why?


So your argument is that somehow we're supposed to interpret the second amendment to mean that the constitution's authors would be in favor of disarming the public?

I'm glad Scalia and Thomas are taking the stance they're taking but I consider words like 'originalist' to be irrelevent. I do consider the priority to be to correctly interpret the original intention. The question is whether there is a valid purpose for the amendments inclusion in the first place - there is: "the security of a free state."

"What Madison, or the other founders, might have thought about today's gun debate and gun laws is another question in the same ongoing discussion."

You hear this concept a lot, I find it useful to isolate, what is the insinuation? That technology is so different? You mean to assert that their original intent was that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (so long as arms technology remain essentially unchanged from that available at the date of ratification)" ???

I would argue that even under that interpretation firearms technology is not so drastically evolved from then that new guns are so dissimilar.

The suggestion that Madison or the others would be in someway 'horrified' by a modern handgun is not credible. Not only were people as comfortable with guns as with an axe or a shovel, but they'd be impressed with the technology, and innovation of that order would be anticipated by any intellectual during that age.'

Anyway, the gun control crowd has generally made it clear they feel that no matter how the second amendment should be interpreted, what they are really in favor is total disarmament of the public. If not outright, then eventually. The entire concept of arguing over the amendment is an unwelcome pleasantry to them, a dreary formality they have to go through the motions of, en route to the rigid socialist state they strongly favor over the one they live in today.

I generally find that socialists/collectivists will make just about any argument if the overall bearing is in the direction of the kind of bankrupt, iron fisted, centrally planned police state that party activists like themselves will be in a position to really enjoy, despite all the horror.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:20 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Anyway, the gun control crowd has generally made it clear they feel that no matter how the second amendment should be interpreted, what they are really in favor is total disarmament of the public.

Straw man (in other words, bullshit).
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19896
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:25 pm

Henry Vilas wrote:
Bludgeon wrote:Anyway, the gun control crowd has generally made it clear they feel that no matter how the second amendment should be interpreted, what they are really in favor is total disarmament of the public.

Straw man (in other words, bullshit).


I won't dispute your own proven eagerness to start quoting the constitution but:

You are going to tell me that you and wack wack and PJ are not in favor of taking guns away from everyone but the police and the military?
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Sat Apr 13, 2013 3:38 pm

You paint the "gun control crowd" with a mighty broad brush. That's like saying the Second Amendment absolutists all want the right to possess nukes (while only some do so).

You ignore those who want reasonable regulations, like limits on rapid fire high capacity weapons or even on universal background checks.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19896
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:01 pm

In that case I'd gladly offer my humble apology if doing so would not put you in the cross hairs of those to whom you might as well be a Republican if you don't demand full confiscation.

Sorry Henry.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Sat Apr 13, 2013 4:26 pm

So your argument is that somehow we're supposed to interpret the second amendment to mean that the constitution's authors would be in favor of disarming the public?


I think we're at the core of our disagreement here.

You seem, thoughout your post, to assume those of us who want gun regulations beyond what we've got now (which is hardly anything) want to take away everybody's guns. This is false.

I suppose somewhere out there thinks so, but I suppose someone out there also thinks random civilians have a right to nuclear weapons. We aren't talking from either of those extremes so we will set them aside.

"Disarming the public" is a weird notion since I do not see the public as being armed at this moment. While the percentage of gun owners in the US is hard to determine (polling firms acknowledge lots of those questioned won't answer truthfully, in both directions) it's usually put at somewhere between 35-50%. We can use other numbers if you like, but the conclusion "the public" is armed is a big leap. Some members of the public are armed would be more correct, and all those people are not doing concealed carry so if by public you mean people out in public, it's even smaller. I am not armed, and I am part of the public just like you. Same with a lot of other people.

On the whole, I think you'd find most people think gun ownership is part of our society and likely to remain so, regardless of whether or not they themselves own guns.

For my own part, I think gun ownership for sport and recreational purposes is just fine if the guns are secured at home, because so many gun deaths occur in the home.

I think we're stuck with a certain percentage of people who feel the need to be able to kill other people who go onto their property when other reactions would be far more proportionate, and I believe the laws governing this activity could be better written.

I do not like the idea a person can kill their spouse in the privacy of their shared home and be able to cite certain legislation indemnifying them after having done so.

As far as concealed carry goes, I think any law that makes it harder to prosecute people who, for instance, take out a gun in a road rage incident is a mistake. The unarmed (and unarmed-by-choice) public has a right to safety, don't forget.

In other words, I believe the devil is in the details and current law is not perfect, but I'm not trying to "disarm the public" in your words.

You mean to assert that their original intent was that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (so long as arms technology remain essentially unchanged from that available at the date of ratification)" ???


What the original intent was isn't today's issue. What people thought 300 years ago helped make us who we are today, but does not determine our entire identity nor our entire body of laws and customs. Technology has changed, but so have communications, political reality, and society. We are no longer subject to Indian raids or slave uprisings. Instead, we have a disproportionate number of blacks shooting one another, and a disproportionate number of white suicides (as shown in the WaPo article and graphs I linked in another gun topic). We need to address today's problems with today's capabilities. If we could, for instance, use a database to track and reduce the number of guns making their way backchannel to urban streets, we might save a few lives. Not all, a few. Every one counts. We are not doing enough in this regard.

The question is whether there is a valid purpose for the amendments inclusion in the first place - there is: "the security of a free state."


I've torn into this notion enough times already in the Gun Thread. Who is the enemy? Why is killing this enemy the best solution? Who is making the state insecure? I haven't seen a reasonable answer yet, and reasonable means relevant to the US as it exists in the 21st century. The Cold War is over and the Russians never came. And please please let us not go all Third Reich again. Nobody here gets that argument but you, and I think we've dealt with it as much as we need to.

"What Madison, or the other founders, might have thought about today's gun debate and gun laws is another question in the same ongoing discussion."

You hear this concept a lot, I find it useful to isolate, what is the insinuation? That technology is so different? You mean to assert that their original intent was that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed (so long as arms technology remain essentially unchanged from that available at the date of ratification)" ??
?

No. See above. Technology is only a small part of what's changed. The world has changed. Civil war, in any form, is not an acceptable option nor a viable one. Syria is a mess right now. If you think any possible problem the US might have should be solved by turning us into a larger Syria, I can't reason with you.

I would argue that even under that interpretation firearms technology is not so drastically evolved from then that new guns are so dissimilar.

The suggestion that Madison or the others would be in someway 'horrified' by a modern handgun is not credible. Not only were people as comfortable with guns as with an axe or a shovel, but they'd be impressed with the technology, and innovation of that order would be anticipated by any intellectual during that age.'


They'd be impressed by the technology but that's not to say they wouldn't think it deserved a different place in America of 2012 than it did in 1776.

You can't tell me Madison and Jefferson foresaw today's firearms. If Jefferson did, he'd have tried to build one because he was a great amateur inventor. I don't think he did. And I doubt any of the founders foresaw today's urban problems. They were rural people.

the gun control crowd has generally made it clear they feel that no matter how the second amendment should be interpreted, what they are really in favor is total disarmament of the public. If not outright, then eventually. The entire concept of arguing over the amendment is an unwelcome pleasantry to them, a dreary formality they have to go through the motions of, en route to the rigid socialist state they strongly favor over the one they live in today.


This is so uninformed and paranoid I can't reply to it.

I generally find that socialists/collectivists will make just about any argument if the overall bearing is in the direction of the kind of bankrupt, iron fisted, centrally planned police state that party activists like themselves will be in a position to really enjoy, despite all the horror.


More paranoia, and if this is really the mind-set underpinning your thoughts about gun control no wonder our national discussion is so fucked. If you really think, say, Bernie Sanders is trying to set up a centrally planned police state, I can't see anywhere we can find common ground.

Why not back off and try to think of the discussion we're trying to have at the national level where parents of Sandy Hook victims are stating their case? What would you say to Gabrielle Giffords and her husband, who were responsible gun owners? What would you propose to them? What would you want for them? What do you say to people who think Wayne LaPierre and his "good guys with guns" argument is half-baked? Keeping this discussion on a human scale with reality-based alternatives is the only way we can continue it. If you insist on making it be about armed revolution, the only people you can discuss with are going to be people exactly like you.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11509
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar