MOBILE USERS: m.isthmus.com
Connect with Isthmus on Twitter · Facebook · Flickr · Newsletters · Instagram 
Tuesday, September 30, 2014 |  Madison, WI: 44.0° F  Overcast
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 Henry Vilas » Sun Apr 14, 2013 10:10 am

The Supreme Court in Heller said that their ruling does not preclude reasonable restrictions on firearms and their possession. Some states limit who can carry a gun when out in public. If they take up challenges to those laws, will they rule them to be reasonable?

Supreme Court may decide who can carry guns
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19917
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Mon Apr 15, 2013 8:51 am

Bludgeon wrote: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)" ???


Let's take another look...

"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 seems very clear that "the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" as long as a well-regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free state.

A well-regulated militia is no longer necessary thanks to our citizens' acceptance and support of a standing, multi-branch military.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3151
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Henry Vilas » Mon Apr 15, 2013 9:22 am

Update: Supreme Court declines to hear gun rights case

Staying out of the raging national debate over guns, the Supreme Court on Monday declined to weigh in on whether gun owners have a constitutional right to carry handguns outside the home.

The court decided not to hear a challenge to a New York state law that requires those who want to carry a concealed handgun to show they have a special reason before they can get a license.

Meaning that for now, the New York law stands and other states can constitutionally enact similar laws.
Henry Vilas
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 19917
Joined: Wed Sep 04, 2002 8:57 pm
Location: Name sez it all

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Bludgeon » Sun Apr 21, 2013 3:36 pm

snoqueen wrote:
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.

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.


Y'know, I really would prefer to agree with you - for the most part I do. Notice, I used hyperbole to make an insinuation, which you took literally. But it's an exageration that only stings because there is a seed of truth in the comparison.

I'd love nothing more than to believe the goal here is really so innocuous as the mild mannered wing of the progressive party professes.

Maybe from inside the liberal party its hard to see. I'll tell you, as a former Democrat, as an atheist, as a libertarian conservative with zero interest in social politics, looking from the outside, your party has changed - a lot; in a scary, radical way. I'd love to merely take solace knowing progressive ideals are all contradictory, how the entire ideology is built on factions that work against themselves in a state of perpetual excitement.

Personally, I've never seen a president stand and shriek in front of the press corps at the white house before, the way Obama did in his 'Shameful day for Washington' speech. I've never seen paramilitary tanks in the street, or a paramilitary lockdown of a major U.S. city before either. Hopefully these things are all good, wonderful, positive signs, somehow.

Troublesome omens: like every other Democrat in 2007, the repeal of the Patriot Act was one of the things I most looked for out of the 2008 election; but in 2013, who here (raise your hands) thinks this is a president who will ever suffer the idea that he would let go of that power? Why does it take his white house weeks to begrudgingly say it doesn't have the authority to "...use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil."

Hopefully all these things and the ever-present look of contempt on the potus's face, are just really creepy coincidences. Odds, and history would suggest that they are. Right?

But I was really speaking more broadly, not about just our time or this administration, but the general trend and progression of continuity. Where is the Roman Empire? Where is the Third Reich? Where is pre-communist China?

Find me an era when the major nations of the western world have not endured tyranny, warfare, horror or atrocities, for so much as a century. Hopefully we get to have that experience. Something's always got to give. Forces in opposition have to have an ultimate resolution; at this time that opposition in so many variety of ways, has become noticabley piqued. In our politics, in our economies, globally, from Greece, to Spain, to Crete - we're all going through some stage of the same process - similar to the series of bandaids politicians, economists, diplomats et al, exhausted en route to a very climactic 20th century.

Look around for leaders capable of solving the variety of crisis we face here, or Germany, or France, or the European Union as a whole, or the U.N., I feel like history is going to conclude we've got the very worst people in place here or anywhere, to be dealing with the magnitude of problems that we face.
Bludgeon
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1291
Joined: Tue Apr 06, 2010 2:27 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Detritus » Sun Apr 21, 2013 4:23 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Y'know, I really don't know anything about socialism, but I'm happy to throw the label at any government activity that frightens me.

Just tightening up your prose a little there, Bludgie.
Detritus
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2396
Joined: Wed May 13, 2009 9:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby pjbogart » Sun Apr 21, 2013 8:25 pm

Bludgeon wrote:Why does it take his white house weeks to begrudgingly say it doesn't have the authority to "...use a weaponized drone to kill an American not engaged in combat on American soil."


You mean like a US citizen formerly from Chechnya? You can't think of a scenario where perhaps we'd go to extraordinary lengths to stop a terrorist that was a US citizen?
pjbogart
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 6160
Joined: Thu Sep 04, 2003 4:57 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Sun Apr 21, 2013 9:56 pm

I've never seen paramilitary tanks in the street, or a paramilitary lockdown of a major U.S. city before either.


I've got to ask how else you would have wanted the problem dealt with. Nobody likes a day (or two, or three) like Boston had, but if you're going to complain about how they handled it you need to provide some preferable scenario.

And I'm not happy either about the secret drone thing or some of the other encroachments on openness and political discussion we've seen from this administration. I think a Romney administration would have been far worse, but that's not to say I am a dedicated Democrat. I'm unaffiliated, largely because there's no party speaking for me. I would prefer a multi-party system, but it's hard to get from here to there.

I don't personally hate the president the way you do, though. I'm not turning that into a point of argument -- I find the guy flawed, but not horrible. I'll take yours as a statement of personal belief and just let it go except to note when things get all personal, sometimes the bigger picture gets obscured. Outside of a small minority who are dedicated to hating him, the president is reasonably popular and well-liked. People can see through the partisanship. I think the bigger picture here is the man is doing pretty well with the hand he's been dealt. Not perfect play from anybody's viewpoint, but respectable play.

Forces in opposition have to have an ultimate resolution; at this time that opposition in so many variety of ways, has become noticabley piqued. In our politics, in our economies, globally, from Greece, to Spain, to Crete - we're all going through some stage of the same process - similar to the series of bandaids politicians, economists, diplomats et al, exhausted en route to a very climactic 20th century.

Look around for leaders capable of solving the variety of crisis we face here, or Germany, or France, or the European Union as a whole, or the U.N., I feel like history is going to conclude we've got the very worst people in place here or anywhere, to be dealing with the magnitude of problems that we face.


This was interesting to read. I can agree we, globally, are in uncharted waters. There's less of a tendency to just invade and try to blow a place to pieces to make a point (Iraq being an example) and more of a tendency to get deadlocked and stalled over an endless series of small crises (the US congress, or the Eurozone). I think that process is the new version of war (for the moment) and I can only say it's better than the old version, where in the US we'd have to fight the Civil War over again or where Europe would have a rerun of World War II.

I don't think leadership is the solution because we're way too fragmented to be brought together by one pivotal figure any more. I think the solution will be more one of exhaustion, competence, and coping. In the long run I think the percentage of problems solved by cooperation will rise and the corresponding percentage of those solved by political intensity will fall -- slowly -- and we might even find we're making progress on quality-of-life things like health care, good food and water, and a good education for everybody. Once those basics are fulfilled the other stuff will seem more routine and less of an emergency. Drama is mode of the times, but it doesn't always have to include violence and tragedy.

I don't think we're the worst people in the world. I think we're learning to deal with complexity and learning to distinguish what's really important from what's ego-based and is false zero-sum thinking.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11538
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby penquin » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:08 am

snoqueen wrote:Nobody likes a day (or two, or three) like Boston had, but if you're going to complain about how they handled it you need to provide some preferable scenario.


Isn't that what was also said about the way we rounded up all the Japanese citizens during WWII? "Don't complain unless you have a better way to make sure none of 'em are spies and sabotagers?"

Of course, then again...that happened sooooo long ago some folks would say it ain't relevant at all now-a-days, so why even bother discussing it.

*sigh*

Seriously, if you're gonna claim that folks can't complain about losing basic rights then why bother calling them "rights" at all? Obviously you (and many others) view them more like privileges, subject to the whims of an armed government agency.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby DCB » Mon Apr 22, 2013 10:56 am

penquin wrote:
snoqueen wrote:Nobody likes a day (or two, or three) like Boston had, but if you're going to complain about how they handled it you need to provide some preferable scenario.


Isn't that what was also said about the way we rounded up all the Japanese citizens during WWII? "Don't complain unless you have a better way to make sure none of 'em are spies and sabotagers?"

No, nobody said that about the Japanese internment. And nobody says it now, because it was a really bad and stupid idea.

I agree that the Boston lockdown was an infringement of rights. I'd like to hear Gov. Patrick come out and say, I'm sorry we did this, but we thought it was the best option. I'd give understand that, because he's probably right.

Its not like he was saying "We don't torture people" while actually authorizing torture.
DCB
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2670
Joined: Fri Jun 20, 2008 5:08 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby snoqueen » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:11 pm

DCB wrote:
penquin wrote:
snoqueen wrote:Nobody likes a day (or two, or three) like Boston had, but if you're going to complain about how they handled it you need to provide some preferable scenario.


Isn't that what was also said about the way we rounded up all the Japanese citizens during WWII? "Don't complain unless you have a better way to make sure none of 'em are spies and sabotagers?"


He just likes to argue, even when he hasn't got an argument. This is a completely irrelevant, stupid comparison for the basic reason there was no public danger from the Japanese-Americans who were interned more than 50 years ago, as opposed to great public danger in Boston last week.

I can only begin to imagine the outrage he'd be spewing if nobody had done anything in Boston and the bombers were allowed to just keep on bombing.
snoqueen
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 11538
Joined: Fri Feb 14, 2003 11:42 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby penquin » Mon Apr 22, 2013 12:41 pm

snoqueen wrote:I can only begin to imagine the outrage he'd be spewing if nobody had done anything in Boston and the bombers were allowed to just keep on bombing.


Well...actually, yes. If "nobody had done anything" then I would've been totally pissed off! But it it really a choice between what happened and totally nothing, or you just trollin' for the sake of trollin'?


Despite what you're reading into my words, I ain't "outraged" about this. I totally understand the mentality behind declaring kinda-but-not-quite-martial-law, and it wasn't as if it was done for bad/vile purposes. But it now sets a totally new precedent...one that not even 9/11 itself set....and that kinda scares and saddens me.
penquin
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 587
Joined: Wed Mar 20, 2013 3:19 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby Mean Scenester » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:22 pm

penquin wrote:But it now sets a totally new precedent...one that not even 9/11 itself set....and that kinda scares and saddens me.

First off, there was no massive manhunt involved with 9/11 because the perpetrators were essentially, ya know, suicide bombers.

Secondly, lock down and/or curfew in the face of a serious public threat is hardly a new idea. The novelty in this case is simply the scale.

Would be interesting to get the take of somebody who's not merely an armchair civil liberties advocate. I'll bet the majority of Boston residents felt only mildly inconvenienced by all this, and I bet for many of them that feeling was far outweighed by a sense of relief at not having to send their kids off to school with a friggin' homicidal maniac explosives fetishist on the loose.
Mean Scenester
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 1301
Joined: Fri Feb 01, 2008 3:56 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby O.J. » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:27 pm

Mean Scenester wrote:Would be interesting to get the take of somebody who's not merely an armchair civil liberties advocate. I'll bet the majority of Boston residents felt only mildly inconvenienced by all this, and I bet for many of them that feeling was far outweighed by a sense of relief at not having to send their kids off to school with a friggin' homicidal maniac explosives fetishist on the loose.


Yup.

The crowd grew especially rowdy when a long line of State Police cruisers rolled past. “Way to go, boys!” one man yelled at a caravan of police.
O.J.
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 2988
Joined: Mon Jul 02, 2007 10:13 am

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby wack wack » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:30 pm

Much of this argument seems to disregard the fact that the Boston "lockdown" was voluntary. There was no legal jeopardy if you left your house. Existential jeopardy, perhaps, but no legal jeopardy.
wack wack
Forum God/Goddess
 
Posts: 3151
Joined: Mon Jan 20, 2003 5:32 pm

Re: The gentrification of the second amendment.

Postby O.J. » Mon Apr 22, 2013 1:33 pm

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

PreviousNext

Return to National Politics & Government

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 3 guests

moviesmusiceats
Select a Movie
Select a Theater


commentsViewedForum
  ISTHMUS FLICKR

Promotions Contact us Privacy Policy Jobs Newsletters RSS
Collapse Photo Bar