Sign in to follow this  
Che'_Moderator

Us Assault Weapon Ban **read First**

Assault Weapons Ban  

68 members have voted

You do not have permission to vote in this poll, or see the poll results. Please sign in or register to vote in this poll.

Recommended Posts

You missed the point of the second quote and largely missed the point of the article. Manufacturers like the AR platform because of the huge accessory upsell that comes with it. And as evidenced by the whole modified car phenomenon we all know so well, the upsell works just as well with weapons. So banning such weapons hurts their business. Guns really aren't about hunting any more. The vast majority of owners don't go get their deer or duck or hog license each year. They own them to stoke their manhood and respond to some inner paranoia that some day they might just need one. Plus, it's fun to go shoot things up and make things go boom.

The truth is not just the truth though because it all depends on who is defining the truth. The question is, why is the 2nd Amendment now interpreted as supporting the right for an individual rather than a collective to bear arms? In part, probably no small part, because the NRA lobbied and influenced the cultural conversation for it to be perceived as such. Up until the end of last century the Supreme Court did not support that interpretation. But Bush's appointees (and it's worth considering that the gun lobby defeated Gore) to the Supreme Court adjusted that interpretation. There's a clear and clean argument to be made here that the NRA has influenced all of this.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
You missed the point of the second quote and largely missed the point of the article. Manufacturers like the AR platform because of the huge accessory upsell that comes with it. And as evidenced by the whole modified car phenomenon we all know so well, the upsell works just as well with weapons. So banning such weapons hurts their business. Guns really aren't about hunting any more. The vast majority of owners don't go get their deer or duck or hog license each year. They own them to stoke their manhood and respond to some inner paranoia that some day they might just need one. Plus, it's fun to go shoot things up and make things go boom.

The truth is not just the truth though because it all depends on who is defining the truth. The question is, why is the 2nd Amendment now interpreted as supporting the right for an individual rather than a collective to bear arms? In part, probably no small part, because the NRA lobbied and influenced the cultural conversation for it to be perceived as such. Up until the end of last century the Supreme Court did not support that interpretation. But Bush's appointees (and it's worth considering that the gun lobby defeated Gore) to the Supreme Court adjusted that interpretation. There's a clear and clean argument to be made here that the NRA has influenced all of this.

You watch/listen to Bill Maher don't you... lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

No. I watch absolutely no broadcast news at all. Nor do I watch any of the late night talk shows either. But I read extensively.

What you'll note is that I never said I entirely support the logic as outlined by Mr. Dickinson. I merely said it adds to the conversation. We talk about rights as if they're eternally defined. And yet that is clearly not the case because it really comes down to how you interpret the words written down on certain pieces of paper and the intentions of the original authors and whether or not you intend to remain true to those intentions.

I can effectively argue either side of the discussion and I think that's important to be effective in understanding your own personal position on an issue. I don't think there is a need for semi-automatic rifles and large (10+ bullet) magazines. I don't think the AWB will do much and I would be happy if all guns disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow. But I support another man's right to own reasonable weapons so long as they're secured, handled with training, and kept out of the hands of the incompetent. I own rifles and shotguns, but they're locked away with trigger locks in my father's gun safe and not in my home where small children roam.

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How dare you say that this money... I mean country is built on the idea of selling things!

The people of this country are perfectly sane... and we have no mental health problems. We must ban all guns so bad people won't get them... thusly... I be able to sleep better at night KNOWING that there's no guns that could hurt... the kids.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
No. I watch absolutely no broadcast news at all. Nor do I watch any of the late night talk shows either. But I read extensively.

What you'll note is that I never said I entirely support the logic as outlined by Mr. Dickinson. I merely said it adds to the conversation. We talk about rights as if they're eternally defined. And yet that is clearly not the case because it really comes down to how you interpret the words written down on certain pieces of paper and the intentions of the original authors and whether or not you intend to remain true to those intentions.

I can effectively argue either side of the discussion and I think that's important to be effective in understanding your own personal position on an issue. I don't think there is a need for semi-automatic rifles and large (10+ bullet) magazines. I don't think the AWB will do much and I would be happy if all guns disappeared off the face of the earth tomorrow. But I support another man's right to own reasonable weapons so long as they're secured, handled with training, and kept out of the hands of the incompetent. I own rifles and shotguns, but they're locked away with trigger locks in my father's gun safe and not in my home where small children roam.

I was only saying that, because you almost quoted him verbatim about the manhood stuff. lol

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
We talk about rights as if they're eternally defined.

Nothing more than a "belief" at a point in time that was written on paper.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Wow ... I see that there's no shortage of complete misunderstanding in regards to what the Bill of Rights is and/or what it means ...

  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

the bill of rights are just that, rights, they are not a bill of wants.

you may WANT an AW, but you do not have the RIGHT to have on, IMO this is how it falls.

wants/needs/rights?

  • Upvote 1
  • Downvote 1

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Please read the link I posted.

You need to realize that there is no DIFFERENCE. It's just what the media has coined in a term AW.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Wow ... I see that there's no shortage of complete misunderstanding in regards to what the Bill of Rights is and/or what it means ...

On your part yes that is clearly evident here.

You believe the Bill of Rights defines innate rights of human kind. While I wouldn't entirely disagree with you, the question comes to understanding exactly what the words mean. What is their legal interpretation and the implications of that interpretation. We don't live in a Napoleonic Code legal system where a law is defined and cannot be changed unless a new law is introduced and codified to instruct legal decisions. At least we don't in the US unless you live in Louisiana where the State Law is Napoleonic in nature. Instead the US legal system is based on English Common Law where Statutory Law is defined by the Legislative and Executive branches (as was done with the Constitution and its amendments) and then Common Law decisions by judges fill in the gaps through establishing legal precedents for applying those law to new and unique circumstances.

That then is the rub where people talk about activist judges on both sides of the aisle - how do they make their decisions for what is the correct interpretation of the laws as written? Advocates of strict constructionism declare that the words as written/spoken must stand for themselves. Historical constructionists look to understand precisely the circumstances under which the laws were written and attempt to adhere conservatively to that interpretation. However you look at it though, ALL are interpreting the text. And that was my point.

Some say the 2nd Amendment alwayws intended for every citizen to have the right to own weapons as an individual and not as a collective part of an organized militia. The courts never specifically agreed with that interpretation until in 2005 and 2010 when legal precedents were set by the Supreme Court based on their decisions. Some call that decision a reinterpretation of the 2nd Amendment. Personally, I agree that they definitely shifted the interpretation but I'm undecided as to whether it was the historically correct interpretation. I also agree that the NRA was heavily influential in changing the political conversation in a manner that made such an interpretation acceptable to a cross section of Justices.

Get it now?

I'm old enough to remember the NRA before it became the storytelling lobbyist focused on convincing every single citizen that the world is collapsing and the government is going to come take away your guns and put you into socialist slavery. It used to be an organization focused on teaching hunters and sportsman in a way similar to the way the PGA teaches and supports golfers. There was an ethical approach to guns and using them and it was a very rational old school attitude. Today's NRA is a completely different animal.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Burn-E --- "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"

The first half is prefatory and the second half is the operative main clause. If you want to break it down to legal interpretation then you must review the grammar.

Furthermore, the Supreme Court is mandated to consider context. The context of the document is very clear as all documentaion by our founding fathers used in the development of the Bill of Rights lists a specific individual right. Those documents also clearly explain the purpose of the bill. The points are not even arguable in those regards.

Also, assuming that the Supreme Courts ruling on the matter is wrong because it came late is absurd. It's a legal clarification which assumes no difference in timeline.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

thats a nice right up of 1 persons OPINION.

its my fault for using AW, but i use it as a catch all since i'm not righting a national blog.

the AWB will do nothing, i find it hard to believe the push back on any regulations though.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
thats a nice right up of 1 persons OPINION.

its my fault for using AW, but i use it as a catch all since i'm not righting a national blog.

the AWB will do nothing, i find it hard to believe the push back on any regulations though.

It's from your friends on the left side. Which happen to be my friends as well...

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Gideon,

Are you missing the irony that you've just acknowledged that interpretation is at the core of how you view the Constitution and its amendments? :rolleyes::lol:

Actually, if you look back at the historical precedence, you find that the record is far muddier than you claim. James Madison introduced this particular Bill during the Constitutional Congress and his original text stated the following:

The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

It later changed to this:

A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms.

The context of the original drafts by Madison clearly implicate that the bearing of arms was directly related to the placement and support of militias as they were very important to the victory of the Colonies over King George's army. But more importantly, it fit into the whole compromise discussion that surrounded the whole convention - the question of States vs. Federal rights. This was codifying the right of the States to arm their citizens.

Madison obviously didn't create this Right from scratch, it was a well understood expectation from the English Bill of Rights but the difference there was that that law was focused on supporting the right for citizens to organize and bear arms to prevent overthrow by a Monarch who disagreed with them politically or religiously. This is the very interpretation that was supported by the Supreme Court for over 230 years until Bush's appointees decided to see it differently.

I can play this game all day if you want. I do it with my friends who actually clerked for currently sitting Supreme Court Justices.

  • Upvote 2

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Sign in to follow this