Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 5, 2014 22:35:24 GMT -5
All my comments are in bold italics inside the quote... Your bold italics describe an insane world. (One with a lot of shootings) Can I carry while drinking? And if not why not?
Sometimes I write Milf too- you going to ding me on that? BTW I did quite well in legal writing- and that term never came up 
What I do want to see is armed football players, fans, refs, and coaches at the next SUPERBOWL (I get that right?) 
My bold italics don't describe an insane world... nor one with a lot of shootings. HAVING a gun doesn't require SHOOTING the gun. Is that a concept that you fail to grasp... or one you just choose to ignore? |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,917 
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 5, 2014 22:43:31 GMT -5
But the chances of customers and restaurant staff subduing a person with a knife are far greater than a person with a semi-automatic rifle randomly shooting up a dining room. That depends on the customers and staff... and how many of them are armed... oh... wait. If the "anti-gun" people have their way, none of them would be. Question: On 9-11... how many of the hijackers had guns? Answer: We know better now after 9/11, don't we. Additionally, restaurants have ground floor doors and windows for escape. Even restaurants in high rise buildings have multple means of exit to the ground floor. An airplane travelling at 400 MPH and at 30,000 feet has no safe exit. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 5, 2014 22:47:05 GMT -5
I think the 'anti-gunners' already have their way- don't know any restaurants where they let the staff carry weapons.
How about a simple way to look at it- have a gun? Keep it in your pants. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 5, 2014 23:24:50 GMT -5
They screwed up Heller too, among others.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 0:38:28 GMT -5
They screwed up Heller too, among others. How did they screw up Heller? They ruled that the Second Amendment applies to "federal enclaves". |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2014 1:01:05 GMT -5
They screwed up Heller too, among others. How did they screw up Heller? They ruled that the Second Amendment applies to "federal enclaves". CREATED a "right" that did not exist previously, and differed from the Court's own previous holding in Miller. Justice Stevens had it right in his dissent. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 4:33:35 GMT -5
How did they screw up Heller? They ruled that the Second Amendment applies to "federal enclaves". CREATED a "right" that did not exist previously, and differed from the Court's own previous holding in Miller. Justice Stevens had it right in his dissent. Incorrect. Heller changed the scope of an existing right to include new things that didn't exist previously. |
|
truthbound
Familiar Member
Joined: Mar 1, 2014 6:01:51 GMT -5
Posts: 814
|
Post by truthbound on Jun 6, 2014 5:03:49 GMT -5
Yeah except they haven't. |
|
Wisconsin Beth
Distinguished Associate
No, we don't walk away. But when we're holding on to something precious, we run.
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 11:59:36 GMT -5
Posts: 30,626 
|
Post by Wisconsin Beth on Jun 6, 2014 8:31:26 GMT -5
How is the general public supposed to determine between the open carry folks and the insane who shoot the RCMPs and at Universities?
I'm not anti-gun but I am anti-gun-stupidity. I think it's stupid to boldly walk around carrying rifles in most places and that includes restaurants. You're not helping your cause (which I'm rather hazy on) and you're more than likely going to a. generate more calls to 9-1-1; b. cause a panic and c. make people think even LESS of your cause or the NRA.
I admit, I'm disappointed in the NRA's back tracking on this. Because I don't much like what little I do know of their stances lately. And this seemed to be an admittance that while yes, we want guns available and acceptable to the general public, this may not be the best way to be gaining that. Which in turn made me think "huh, there's a glimmer of intelligence/hope/sanity/something in the NRA after all." Which was just shot to dollrags after they backtracked.
This is a gut reaction, so it's emotional based and not logical. So it's harder to argue. Furthermore, I suspect that a fair amount of people tend to think along these lines. I could be wrong though.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2014 8:50:54 GMT -5
Heller CREATED a "right" that did not exist previously, and differed from the Court's own previous holding in Miller. Justice Stevens had it right in his dissent. Incorrect. Heller changed the scope of an existing right to include new things that didn't exist previously.
Semantics. But thank you for agreeing with me. There may be hope for you yet. 
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 14:56:53 GMT -5
This must be a first for the NRA. NRA says Open Carry Texas demonstrations 'downright scary'
The National Rifle Association has issued a strongly-worded criticism of a fellow gun rights group, calling its practice of so-called "open carry" demonstrations "downright scary." The criticisms of Open Carry Texas were noted in an unsigned post published Friday on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action page. Open Carry Texas members have become known for gathering in public places, mostly notably restaurants, carrying large, high-powered rifles.  Most recently, Sonic, Chipotle, and Chili's joined Starbucks, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, and Applebee's in banning firearms from their premises after protests by Open Carry Texas. "Let’s not mince words," the post on the NRA's site said, "not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates. Rest of article below. NRA says Open Carry Texas demonstrations 'downright scary' How does an unsigned post on the ILA website become "The NRA Crticizes Some Texas Gunowners" ? I'm unable to make the leap after reading the article. |
|
Tennesseer
Member Emeritus
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 21:58:42 GMT -5
Posts: 64,917
|
Post by Tennesseer on Jun 6, 2014 15:28:25 GMT -5
This must be a first for the NRA. NRA says Open Carry Texas demonstrations 'downright scary'
The National Rifle Association has issued a strongly-worded criticism of a fellow gun rights group, calling its practice of so-called "open carry" demonstrations "downright scary." The criticisms of Open Carry Texas were noted in an unsigned post published Friday on the NRA's Institute for Legislative Action page. Open Carry Texas members have become known for gathering in public places, mostly notably restaurants, carrying large, high-powered rifles. Most recently, Sonic, Chipotle, and Chili's joined Starbucks, Wendy's, Jack in the Box, and Applebee's in banning firearms from their premises after protests by Open Carry Texas. "Let’s not mince words," the post on the NRA's site said, "not only is it rare, it’s downright weird and certainly not a practical way to go normally about your business while being prepared to defend yourself. To those who are not acquainted with the dubious practice of using public displays of firearms as a means to draw attention to oneself or one’s cause, it can be downright scary. It makes folks who might normally be perfectly open-minded about firearms feel uncomfortable and question the motives of pro-gun advocates. Rest of article below. NRA says Open Carry Texas demonstrations 'downright scary' How does an unsigned post on the ILA website become "The NRA Crticizes Some Texas Gunowners" ? I'm unable to make the leap after reading the article. That doesn't surprise me. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 6, 2014 18:37:47 GMT -5
Incorrect. Heller changed the scope of an existing right to include new things that didn't exist previously.
Semantics. But thank you for agreeing with me. There may be hope for you yet.
Not semantics. You were wrong. I didn't agree with you. "Changing the scope of existing law/rights" and "Creating a right that never existed before" are two entirely different and separate things. ETA: and those "things that didn't exist previously" I was referring to were new weapons that hadn't been invented yet... NOT new rights. |
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 6, 2014 21:01:50 GMT -5
The gun nuts must forgive the media and the rest of us that thought that maybe for just a second the NRA might be reasonable about something, that maybe they had a limit. Our bad.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 6, 2014 22:05:03 GMT -5
Semantics. But thank you for agreeing with me. There may be hope for you yet.
Not semantics. You were wrong. I didn't agree with you. "Changing the scope of existing law/rights" and "Creating a right that never existed before" are two entirely different and separate things. ETA: and those "things that didn't exist previously" I was referring to were new weapons that hadn't been invented yet... NOT new rights.I read it the other way. My apologies. But Heller absolutely created a new "right" with its interpretation. The Court had never held that there was an individual civilian right. Any discussion previously was focused on the collective military right as the Second Amendment logically states. The Court in Heller ignored decades of previous decisions to basically "make something up." If you haven't read the Stevens dissent in its entirety, I recommend it. I don't expect it to change your mind, but there is much to think about.
And personally, I don't really care whether anyone owns guns or not. I only begin to care when they are used. But the right to own a gun is granted by the state, and the state has legitimate reasons for and authority to regulate them. The private ownership of guns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment. (Or at least wasn't until an activist Court made it up.) And certainly not the unfettered ownership of guns that so many wish for.
|
|
EVT1
Junior Associate
Joined: Dec 30, 2010 16:22:42 GMT -5
Posts: 8,596
|
Post by EVT1 on Jun 6, 2014 23:52:19 GMT -5
Judicial Activism.
Good or bad depending on the issue and which side of the fence you are on.
But for now- corporations are people, money is speech, and democracy is a crack whore in an alley. If they could only find a way to prohibit guns for black people- that hasn't been tried before.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 18:14:19 GMT -5
Not semantics. You were wrong. I didn't agree with you. "Changing the scope of existing law/rights" and "Creating a right that never existed before" are two entirely different and separate things. ETA: and those "things that didn't exist previously" I was referring to were new weapons that hadn't been invented yet... NOT new rights.I read it the other way. My apologies. But Heller absolutely created a new "right" with its interpretation. The Court had never held that there was an individual civilian right. Any discussion previously was focused on the collective military right as the Second Amendment logically states. The Court in Heller ignored decades of previous decisions to basically "make something up." If you haven't read the Stevens dissent in its entirety, I recommend it. I don't expect it to change your mind, but there is much to think about.
And personally, I don't really care whether anyone owns guns or not. I only begin to care when they are used. But the right to own a gun is granted by the state, and the state has legitimate reasons for and authority to regulate them. The private ownership of guns is not guaranteed by the Second Amendment. (Or at least wasn't until an activist Court made it up.) And certainly not the unfettered ownership of guns that so many wish for.
IF that's true (and I'm not going to hunt up precedent... because it likely IS true), then it's likely that that's because it was never brought to them before as a civilian issue. The "Right" was created in the Bill of Rights... Note the bolded word the Founding Fathers used here: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." It's already an individual, citizen's right. It doesn't say "soldiers" or "militia men"... it says "people". |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 7, 2014 18:54:45 GMT -5
Again, read the dissent. It is linked in #66. As Stevens writes, there were other state declarations that did reference an individual right. There were also proposed amendments to the text which referenced an individual right. Those were rejected in the actual wording used. The Second Amendment itself fairly clearly and certainly logically refers to the need for the people to be armed in order to defend the state as a member of the militia. That is all it does.
As I said, just read it. And as I also said, I don't expect it to change your mind. You want to believe that it guarantees you an individual civilian right, and I get that. But just because you want something to be true does not make it so.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 7, 2014 20:53:12 GMT -5
It's not a matter of what I "want to believe", It's a matter of fact. The Bill of Rights specifies that the right is for People (Here it is again... in case you forgot: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."). If the dissenting judges didn't realize that... is that my fault/issue... or theirs?
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 8, 2014 10:04:53 GMT -5
If you want to focus on words, try these: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
Why is it that all of the Second Amendment "true believers" always seem to dispense with the first thirteen? They are there for a reason. They set the conditions for the part that you want to focus on. The second part means nothing without the first. And the first makes clear what the Amendment actually refers to.
It is stunning to what extent people like you will go in trying to justify their desire. To venerate the Founding Fathers for coming up with something as wise and necessary as the Second Amendment (indeed, the entire Bill of Rights, though I suspect the rest mean substantially less to you) and to simultaneously believe that they were much in favor of extraneous and meaningless verbiage (as you wish the Amendment's prefatory clause to be) is mind-boggling. |
|
mmhmm
Administrator
It's a great pity the right of free speech isn't based on the obligation to say something sensible.
Joined: Dec 25, 2010 18:13:34 GMT -5
Posts: 31,770
Today's Mood: Saddened by Events
Location: Memory Lane
Favorite Drink: Water
|
Post by mmhmm on Jun 8, 2014 12:00:23 GMT -5
I see a difference between "the people" and "the person", or "the individual".  |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 18:01:16 GMT -5
If you want to focus on words, try these: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
Why is it that all of the Second Amendment "true believers" always seem to dispense with the first thirteen? They are there for a reason. They set the conditions for the part that you want to focus on. The second part means nothing without the first. And the first makes clear what the Amendment actually refers to.
It is stunning to what extent people like you will go in trying to justify their desire. To venerate the Founding Fathers for coming up with something as wise and necessary as the Second Amendment (indeed, the entire Bill of Rights, though I suspect the rest mean substantially less to you) and to simultaneously believe that they were much in favor of extraneous and meaningless verbiage (as you wish the Amendment's prefatory clause to be) is mind-boggling. I wasn't ignoring that part... it just wasn't relevant. Remember, the Militia of the time was made up of "regular people"... farmers and store owners and whomever. ALL of whom were private, armed, citizens prior to them volunteering, in a kind of "I'll be here until I don't want to be, or can't be, anymore" ad-hoc kind of way, to be in the militia. That's something that people who don't believe in (or want to weaken) the Second Amendment tend to forget. |
|
8 Bit WWBG
Administrator
Your Money admin
Joined: Dec 19, 2010 8:57:29 GMT -5
Posts: 9,322
Today's Mood: Mega
|
Post by 8 Bit WWBG on Jun 8, 2014 18:10:59 GMT -5
Well I do see a market opportunity here for accessories to make the guns more fashionable. Like how about a really nice strap for black tie affairs? It can come in the package with the bow tie, and cummerbund. I am so matching my strap to my pocket silk.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 8, 2014 20:00:47 GMT -5
If you want to focus on words, try these: "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state...."
Why is it that all of the Second Amendment "true believers" always seem to dispense with the first thirteen? They are there for a reason. They set the conditions for the part that you want to focus on. The second part means nothing without the first. And the first makes clear what the Amendment actually refers to.
It is stunning to what extent people like you will go in trying to justify their desire. To venerate the Founding Fathers for coming up with something as wise and necessary as the Second Amendment (indeed, the entire Bill of Rights, though I suspect the rest mean substantially less to you) and to simultaneously believe that they were much in favor of extraneous and meaningless verbiage (as you wish the Amendment's prefatory clause to be) is mind-boggling. Remember, the Militia of the time was made up of "regular people"... farmers and store owners and whomever. ALL of whom were private, armed, citizens prior to them volunteering, in a kind of "I'll be here until I don't want to be, or can't be, anymore" ad-hoc kind of way, to be in the militia. That's something that people who don't believe in (or want to weaken) the Second Amendment tend to forget. Nor am I ignoring that the militia WAS the people. That is the entire reason and justification for the Second Amendment in the first place. That the defense of the state was better held in the hands of the people rather than a standing army. But the fact remains that the option was there to ensure a private, civilian right to the ownership of guns (as some of the states did and urged) but that language was rejected in the debate over and writing of the Amendment. The first thirteen words are absolutely relevant, in that they set the condition for the right to exist at all.
But again, it is mind-boggling that you believe Madison just threw those words in there for fun.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 20:39:25 GMT -5
Who said he threw them in there just for fun? I certainly don't recall ever stating that.
You seem to like reading things into what people write that are clearly not there. husker... is that you under a different name?
Those 13 words are not irrelevant to history or the amendment itself... just to THIS discussion. We are talking a bout a right of the PEOPLE. We are not talking about why they (the Founding Fathers) believed the right to be a good one.
|
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 8, 2014 21:09:58 GMT -5
Are you serious? The meaning of the Amendment IS this discussion. (At least the one that we're having.) You cannot have it both ways. It cannot be relevant to one without being relevant to the other. You have already stated that you do not consider it relevant, which matches perfectly my contention of why your (and the Court's) interpretation is wrong.
|
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 22:32:27 GMT -5
Are you serious? The meaning of the Amendment IS this discussion. (At least the one that we're having.) You cannot have it both ways. It cannot be relevant to one without being relevant to the other. You have already stated that you do not consider it relevant, which matches perfectly my contention of why your (and the Court's) interpretation is wrong. The meaning of the RIGHT itself, in the Amendment, is this discussion... not the "why is there the existence of that right". Do you understand the difference between "the why" of something and "the what" of that very same something? Do you understand that a discussion can exclude one or the other? "The sky is blue with clouds of white, clouds are made up of water particles and rain comes from them" If we are discussing evaporation, and rain... can we not skip the first 8 words of that sentence? Same thing here. |
|
tallguy
Senior Associate
Joined: Apr 2, 2011 19:21:59 GMT -5
Posts: 14,690
|
Post by tallguy on Jun 8, 2014 22:46:12 GMT -5
Horrible analogy. The first eight words there are irrelevant in ANY such discussion. They are not at all germane to the issue. In the other example, they are inextricably entwined. The right ONLY exists because of the "Why." That is logically true from the writing, and is supported by the evidence.
|
|
billisonboard
Community Leader
Joined: Dec 20, 2010 22:45:44 GMT -5
Posts: 38,475
Member is Online
|
Post by billisonboard on Jun 8, 2014 22:48:27 GMT -5
It's not a matter of what I "want to believe", It's a matter of fact. The Bill of Rights specifies that the right is for People (Here it is again... in case you forgot: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."). If the dissenting judges didn't realize that... is that my fault/issue... or theirs? ... I wasn't ignoring that part... ... I would disagree. The proper way to quote a part of the Second Amendment is "... the right of the people ...". You chose to quote it "the right of the people ...". You clearly ignore the existence of those first words in your quote. |
|
Deleted
Joined: Nov 28, 2024 19:56:18 GMT -5
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 8, 2014 23:39:52 GMT -5
It's not a matter of what I "want to believe", It's a matter of fact. The Bill of Rights specifies that the right is for People (Here it is again... in case you forgot: "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed."). If the dissenting judges didn't realize that... is that my fault/issue... or theirs? ... I wasn't ignoring that part... ... I would disagree. The proper way to quote a part of the Second Amendment is "... the right of the people ...". You chose to quote it "the right of the people ...". You clearly ignore the existence of those first words in your quote. While I agree with your point about the proper way to quote that, It wasn't my intent to suggest there was nothing preceding what I quoted. I inadvertently left off preceding ellipses (wasn't thinking about punctuation too much at the time, and considered that the comma in the Amendment was enough of a "break" to not qualify for the use of an ellipses). That was my error and I gladly admit to it. I can go edit it back in (I think... is there a time limit for edits on this board?), if you like (and if I can). |
|
