Washington post documents unique destructive capabilities of

[tallguy]

Well, either way I am setting the over/under at 2.5 for when we get a thoughtful, reasoned, well-articulated response.  No, I am not going to stipulate whether that is in days, weeks, months, or years.     

[djAdvocate]

it's interesting though, right?


i think it is SO COOL to get this much insight into how the sausage is made!

[thyme4change]

Guns don’t kill people

Ammunition kills people

I don’t think 2A says anything about ammo.

[scgal]

May 16, 2024 15:13:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- this is one of MANY letters on this subject. if you want more i can provide it.

It was a good read thank you. I do like history.

The way "I see it" is the BOR was formed it can get amended and was several times as it may need be, but in the end it is where it is. I don't want to change the subject but in the instance of ROE I didn't agree with it and waited for it to be updated. People may not be happy with the 2010 2A decision (many are) but it is where it is until it is changed. 

On this thread here, to me is not so much about the 2A but the misunderstanding that a DR can tell anything about a gunshot victim other than if it was a high powered rifle, shotgun, or a handgun. To call out an AR specifically is nothing more than showing how ignorant they are about firearms. 

[scgal]

May 16, 2024 13:29:30 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 16, 2024 9:11:55 GMT -5 scgal said:

I am interested

That rings pretty hollow, considering you didn't seem interested when I posted to you before not only that a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has called this Second Amendment nonsense one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the public, that the Supreme Court had NEVER until 2010 held in favor of an individual right to own guns, and that language specifically ensuring an individual right to own guns was debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment.  You cling to your opinions, as ill-informed as they are, because that is all you have.  Worse, it seems to be all you want to have.  So...prove me wrong.  Address those, and engage in the discussion with dj.  I doubt anyone will convince you, because you are too wedded to your own interests and desires at the expense of everyone and everything else, but the discussion has value for anyone open to it. 

OK so that was his dissent who cares I don't the majority saw it different. We all can discuss our opinions You know mine I know yours neither one of us is going to change our minds so I will disagree there is not value in it. 

[billisonboard]

May 21, 2024 8:24:20 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 16, 2024 15:13:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- this is one of MANY letters on this subject. if you want more i can provide it.

It was a good read thank you. I do like history.

The way "I see it" is the BOR was formed it can get amended and was several times as it may need be, but in the end it is where it is. I don't want to change the subject but in the instance of ROE I didn't agree with it and waited for it to be updated. People may not be happy with the 2010 2A decision (many are) but it is where it is until it is changed. 

On this thread here, to me is not so much about the 2A but the misunderstanding that a DR can tell anything about a gunshot victim other than if it was a high powered rifle, shotgun, or a handgun. To call out an AR specifically is nothing more than showing how ignorant they are about firearms. 

The thread starts with a link to an article that describes the damage done by an AK 15. Therefore a discussion of the damage done by an AK 15 specifically makes since to me. I appreciate that you acknowledge that a discussion of banning similar weapons should be taking place.

[scgal]

May 21, 2024 8:40:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 21, 2024 8:24:20 GMT -5 scgal said:

It was a good read thank you. I do like history.

The way "I see it" is the BOR was formed it can get amended and was several times as it may need be, but in the end it is where it is. I don't want to change the subject but in the instance of ROE I didn't agree with it and waited for it to be updated. People may not be happy with the 2010 2A decision (many are) but it is where it is until it is changed. 

On this thread here, to me is not so much about the 2A but the misunderstanding that a DR can tell anything about a gunshot victim other than if it was a high powered rifle, shotgun, or a handgun. To call out an AR specifically is nothing more than showing how ignorant they are about firearms. 

The thread starts with a link to an article that describes the damage done by an AK 15. Therefore a discussion of the damage done by an AK 15 specifically makes since to me. I appreciate that you acknowledge that a discussion of banning similar weapons should be taking place.

The article says AR the AK is totally different. That is the issue who said the damage was from an AR? Was it the Dr or was the Dr told that an AR was used that is the point I'm getting at. 

[pulmonarymd]

May 21, 2024 8:46:36 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 21, 2024 8:40:02 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

The thread starts with a link to an article that describes the damage done by an AK 15. Therefore a discussion of the damage done by an AK 15 specifically makes since to me. I appreciate that you acknowledge that a discussion of banning similar weapons should be taking place.

The article says AR the AK is totally different. That is the issue who said the damage was from an AR? Was it the Dr or was the Dr told that an AR was used that is the point I'm getting at. 

What difference does it make if they were told the person was shot with an AR-15. The article was describing the injuries caused by an AR-15, and they were compared to other weapons.

I know what an opioid overdose looks like. Until a lab test confirms it and tells us what drug it was, or a someone tells us what they took, I do not know what the exact cause of the overdose was. I know what lung cancer looks like, but until a biopsy confirms it, we do not know the type. Your point is idiotic, and you are trying to obfuscate the point. These weapons are far more destructive to the human body, and this was confirmed at autopsy, you know, the legal way that cause of death is determined. 

[djAdvocate]

May 21, 2024 8:24:20 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 16, 2024 15:13:01 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

PS- this is one of MANY letters on this subject. if you want more i can provide it.

It was a good read thank you. I do like history.

The way "I see it" is the BOR was formed it can get amended and was several times as it may need be, but in the end it is where it is. I don't want to change the subject but in the instance of ROE I didn't agree with it and waited for it to be updated. People may not be happy with the 2010 2A decision (many are) but it is where it is until it is changed. 

On this thread here, to me is not so much about the 2A but the misunderstanding that a DR can tell anything about a gunshot victim other than if it was a high powered rifle, shotgun, or a handgun. To call out an AR specifically is nothing more than showing how ignorant they are about firearms. 

again, i don't have a problem with the 2010 decision, per se.  but it is in direct conflict with the decision Wilson made.  Jefferson had a very definite interest in 2A that Wilson and every president since him has completely subverted.

[Tennesseer]

Washington Post article. May be behind a paywall for non-subscibers.  Long article too.  If behind a paywall, and you are interested in reading the entire article, let me know.  

A tragedy without end
Survivors of 2017 Sutherland Springs church massacre endure lifelong disability and trauma left behind by a gunman’s use of an AR-15

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — Multitudes of purple freckles dot Morgan Workman’s legs, arms, chest and cheekbone — tiny shards of metal from bullets and shrapnel that struck her as she worshiped in her church more than five years ago.

The fragments are leaching lead. Workman suffers from toxicity symptoms, including body pains, fatigue, depression — and has been told by doctors that she probably can’t have a baby.

“It feels like it was yesterday, like we’re still going through all of it,” Workman, 25, said. “Very uncommonly does a Sunday go by that I don’t think: ‘What if? How would I get out? Would I get out? Would I be able to do something?’”

Workman was shot twice when a gunman opened fire in the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, slaying worshipers gathered for Sunday service. More than two dozen of her fellow parishioners and closest friends died in the Nov. 5, 2017, attack.

Twenty others were wounded, sentenced to lives of unending pain and illness.

David Colbath, shot nine times, suffers from high levels of lead in his blood. He can barely stand or use his hands without pain. Kris Workman, Morgan’s brother-in-law who was shot twice, was paralyzed from the waist down and told by doctors he’d probably never walk again or conceive children.

John Holcombe and his now-12-year-old daughter, Evelyn, cling to each other for support. His pregnant wife, Crystal, had shielded Evelyn from the gunman and was killed along with Evelyn’s three siblings and grandparents.

Some of the survivors have moved away from Sutherland Springs. Some have contemplated suicide.

The physical impact of the bullets and the number of lives lost were magnified by the shooter’s chosen weapon. Devin Patrick Kelley, wielding a Ruger AR-556 rifle, fired 450 military-grade bullets inside the church within minutes, all of which left the barrel at a velocity of around 3,200 feet a second.

The devastation was incomparable to damage from a handgun or shotgun. Doctors who treated the victims likened the wounds to something they might have seen on a battlefield.

“The high-velocity firearm injuries, when they come in, you’re missing body parts, and there’s bleeding,” said Lillian Liao, a trauma surgeon at University Hospital and UT Health in San Antonio. “You don’t see muscle. There’s just bone and skin and missing parts.”

Five years on, many in the working-class town of 600 — nestled in the dusty-road countryside an hour southeast of San Antonio — still attend services every Sunday. They pray in a new church built next to the old one. The sanctuary, funded by donations from around the country, has fortified walls and security cameras. Many of the congregants — in addition to those in the church’s new security team — carry guns on their hips for protection.

Every Sunday, they chime a bell in the church’s tower where 25 portraits of those lost hang high, along with an image of angels to honor Crystal’s unborn child. Children hobble through the pews with leg braces, men carry colostomy bags that sometimes leak. Some, like Workman, are marked by sprays of odd-looking freckles.

Rest of article here: A tragedy without end

[pulmonarymd]

May 21, 2024 11:20:46 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Washington Post article. May be behind a paywall for non-subscibers.  Long article too.  If behind a paywall, and you are interested in reading the entire article, let me know.  

A tragedy without end
Survivors of 2017 Sutherland Springs church massacre endure lifelong disability and trauma left behind by a gunman’s use of an AR-15

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — Multitudes of purple freckles dot Morgan Workman’s legs, arms, chest and cheekbone — tiny shards of metal from bullets and shrapnel that struck her as she worshiped in her church more than five years ago.

The fragments are leaching lead. Workman suffers from toxicity symptoms, including body pains, fatigue, depression — and has been told by doctors that she probably can’t have a baby.

“It feels like it was yesterday, like we’re still going through all of it,” Workman, 25, said. “Very uncommonly does a Sunday go by that I don’t think: ‘What if? How would I get out? Would I get out? Would I be able to do something?’”

Workman was shot twice when a gunman opened fire in the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, slaying worshipers gathered for Sunday service. More than two dozen of her fellow parishioners and closest friends died in the Nov. 5, 2017, attack.

Twenty others were wounded, sentenced to lives of unending pain and illness.

David Colbath, shot nine times, suffers from high levels of lead in his blood. He can barely stand or use his hands without pain. Kris Workman, Morgan’s brother-in-law who was shot twice, was paralyzed from the waist down and told by doctors he’d probably never walk again or conceive children.

John Holcombe and his now-12-year-old daughter, Evelyn, cling to each other for support. His pregnant wife, Crystal, had shielded Evelyn from the gunman and was killed along with Evelyn’s three siblings and grandparents.

Some of the survivors have moved away from Sutherland Springs. Some have contemplated suicide.

The physical impact of the bullets and the number of lives lost were magnified by the shooter’s chosen weapon. Devin Patrick Kelley, wielding a Ruger AR-556 rifle, fired 450 military-grade bullets inside the church within minutes, all of which left the barrel at a velocity of around 3,200 feet a second.

The devastation was incomparable to damage from a handgun or shotgun. Doctors who treated the victims likened the wounds to something they might have seen on a battlefield.

“The high-velocity firearm injuries, when they come in, you’re missing body parts, and there’s bleeding,” said Lillian Liao, a trauma surgeon at University Hospital and UT Health in San Antonio. “You don’t see muscle. There’s just bone and skin and missing parts.”

Five years on, many in the working-class town of 600 — nestled in the dusty-road countryside an hour southeast of San Antonio — still attend services every Sunday. They pray in a new church built next to the old one. The sanctuary, funded by donations from around the country, has fortified walls and security cameras. Many of the congregants — in addition to those in the church’s new security team — carry guns on their hips for protection.

Every Sunday, they chime a bell in the church’s tower where 25 portraits of those lost hang high, along with an image of angels to honor Crystal’s unborn child. Children hobble through the pews with leg braces, men carry colostomy bags that sometimes leak. Some, like Workman, are marked by sprays of odd-looking freckles.

Rest of article here: A tragedy without end

They should be proud of their sacrifice on the altar of the second amendment. Their suffering is for the greater good.

Yet another "woke" surgeon who has no idea what she is talking about when it comes to gunshot wounds./s

[tallguy]

May 21, 2024 8:32:59 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 16, 2024 13:29:30 GMT -5 tallguy said:

That rings pretty hollow, considering you didn't seem interested when I posted to you before not only that a CONSERVATIVE REPUBLICAN former Chief Justice of the Supreme Court has called this Second Amendment nonsense one of the greatest frauds ever perpetrated on the public, that the Supreme Court had NEVER until 2010 held in favor of an individual right to own guns, and that language specifically ensuring an individual right to own guns was debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment.  You cling to your opinions, as ill-informed as they are, because that is all you have.  Worse, it seems to be all you want to have.  So...prove me wrong.  Address those, and engage in the discussion with dj.  I doubt anyone will convince you, because you are too wedded to your own interests and desires at the expense of everyone and everything else, but the discussion has value for anyone open to it. 

OK so that was his dissent who cares I don't the majority saw it different. We all can discuss our opinions You know mine I know yours neither one of us is going to change our minds so I will disagree there is not value in it. 

Yes, that was Burger's opinion.  It was, however, an educated one.  (And to clarify, Burger was not on the Court in 2010.  He served decades before, back when being conservative actually meant something.  Burger was nominated by Richard Nixon, and served as Chief Justice for about two decades.)  I am still more interested in the other two that you again failed to address.

1.  The Supreme Court had NEVER in over 200 years held for an individual right to own guns.

2.  Language allowing an individual right to own guns was specifically debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment.


Those are NOT opinions.  Those are facts.  There is NOTHING in the history of the Second Amendment that says what you wish it to say.  Heller was a bastardization of history, not a reflection of it.

[Opti]

May 21, 2024 11:20:46 GMT -5 Tennesseer said:

Washington Post article. May be behind a paywall for non-subscibers.  Long article too.  If behind a paywall, and you are interested in reading the entire article, let me know.  

A tragedy without end
Survivors of 2017 Sutherland Springs church massacre endure lifelong disability and trauma left behind by a gunman’s use of an AR-15

SUTHERLAND SPRINGS, Tex. — Multitudes of purple freckles dot Morgan Workman’s legs, arms, chest and cheekbone — tiny shards of metal from bullets and shrapnel that struck her as she worshiped in her church more than five years ago.

The fragments are leaching lead. Workman suffers from toxicity symptoms, including body pains, fatigue, depression — and has been told by doctors that she probably can’t have a baby.

“It feels like it was yesterday, like we’re still going through all of it,” Workman, 25, said. “Very uncommonly does a Sunday go by that I don’t think: ‘What if? How would I get out? Would I get out? Would I be able to do something?’”

Workman was shot twice when a gunman opened fire in the First Baptist Church of Sutherland Springs, slaying worshipers gathered for Sunday service. More than two dozen of her fellow parishioners and closest friends died in the Nov. 5, 2017, attack.

Twenty others were wounded, sentenced to lives of unending pain and illness.

David Colbath, shot nine times, suffers from high levels of lead in his blood. He can barely stand or use his hands without pain. Kris Workman, Morgan’s brother-in-law who was shot twice, was paralyzed from the waist down and told by doctors he’d probably never walk again or conceive children.

John Holcombe and his now-12-year-old daughter, Evelyn, cling to each other for support. His pregnant wife, Crystal, had shielded Evelyn from the gunman and was killed along with Evelyn’s three siblings and grandparents.

Some of the survivors have moved away from Sutherland Springs. Some have contemplated suicide.

The physical impact of the bullets and the number of lives lost were magnified by the shooter’s chosen weapon. Devin Patrick Kelley, wielding a Ruger AR-556 rifle, fired 450 military-grade bullets inside the church within minutes, all of which left the barrel at a velocity of around 3,200 feet a second.

The devastation was incomparable to damage from a handgun or shotgun. Doctors who treated the victims likened the wounds to something they might have seen on a battlefield.

“The high-velocity firearm injuries, when they come in, you’re missing body parts, and there’s bleeding,” said Lillian Liao, a trauma surgeon at University Hospital and UT Health in San Antonio. “You don’t see muscle. There’s just bone and skin and missing parts.”

Five years on, many in the working-class town of 600 — nestled in the dusty-road countryside an hour southeast of San Antonio — still attend services every Sunday. They pray in a new church built next to the old one. The sanctuary, funded by donations from around the country, has fortified walls and security cameras. Many of the congregants — in addition to those in the church’s new security team — carry guns on their hips for protection.

Every Sunday, they chime a bell in the church’s tower where 25 portraits of those lost hang high, along with an image of angels to honor Crystal’s unborn child. Children hobble through the pews with leg braces, men carry colostomy bags that sometimes leak. Some, like Workman, are marked by sprays of odd-looking freckles.

Rest of article here: A tragedy without end

So very sad, but good to know. There are often suicides following events like this. I am sad when I find out school kids have committed suicide due to the horror of what they went through and the struggle to move past it. 

[scgal]

May 21, 2024 12:49:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 21, 2024 8:32:59 GMT -5 scgal said:

OK so that was his dissent who cares I don't the majority saw it different. We all can discuss our opinions You know mine I know yours neither one of us is going to change our minds so I will disagree there is not value in it. 

Yes, that was Burger's opinion.  It was, however, an educated one.  (And to clarify, Burger was not on the Court in 2010.  He served decades before, back when being conservative actually meant something.  Burger was nominated by Richard Nixon, and served as Chief Justice for about two decades.)  I am still more interested in the other two that you again failed to address.

1.  The Supreme Court had NEVER in over 200 years held for an individual right to own guns.

2.  Language allowing an individual right to own guns was specifically debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment.


Those are NOT opinions.  Those are facts.  There is NOTHING in the history of the Second Amendment that says what you wish it to say.  Heller was a bastardization of history, not a reflection of it.

I can sum up both with 1 answer. Things change that is why there is amendments and new decisions. The wasn't anything ever written about right to an abortion but then you had Roe then again Roe was reversed. Nothing was ever written about gay marriage being a right but in 2015 the decision was to recognize it. I would like to have things as they were intended but I also recognize the need for change. I think the change was long over due to reverse Roe and the 2a now is correct in recognizing the need for everyone being allowed to own a firearm. Hope this answers your question if not this is what you have

[Opti]

May 23, 2024 4:36:16 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 21, 2024 12:49:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Yes, that was Burger's opinion.  It was, however, an educated one.  (And to clarify, Burger was not on the Court in 2010.  He served decades before, back when being conservative actually meant something.  Burger was nominated by Richard Nixon, and served as Chief Justice for about two decades.)  I am still more interested in the other two that you again failed to address.

1.  The Supreme Court had NEVER in over 200 years held for an individual right to own guns.

2.  Language allowing an individual right to own guns was specifically debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment.


Those are NOT opinions.  Those are facts.  There is NOTHING in the history of the Second Amendment that says what you wish it to say.  Heller was a bastardization of history, not a reflection of it.

I can sum up both with 1 answer. Things change that is why there is amendments and new decisions. The wasn't anything ever written about right to an abortion but then you had Roe then again Roe was reversed. Nothing was ever written about gay marriage being a right but in 2015 the decision was to recognize it. I would like to have things as they were intended but I also recognize the need for change. I think the change was long over due to reverse Roe and the 2a now is correct in recognizing the need for everyone being allowed to own a firearm. Hope this answers your question if not this is what you have

I know you are replying to TG, but I still disagree with the current misinterpretation of the second amendment. The right to marriage is not in the constitution anywhere. The right to have children isn't in there either. So it seems kind of weird to reinterpret 2A to mean the right to own a gun as if that would be more important than most rights we should possess. It was written in 1791 along with the third amendment which prevents own's home being used to quarter soldiers.

I know you like the change in interpretation and sometimes wonder would you be happy with felons living next to you owning guns or unstable folks living next to you owning guns. I disagree with not replacing Roe v Wade with something better as I don't like people playing God with women's lives. Women shouldn't have to die when a spontaneous abortion happens. 

[scgal]

May 23, 2024 5:48:02 GMT -5 Opti said:

May 23, 2024 4:36:16 GMT -5 scgal said:

I can sum up both with 1 answer. Things change that is why there is amendments and new decisions. The wasn't anything ever written about right to an abortion but then you had Roe then again Roe was reversed. Nothing was ever written about gay marriage being a right but in 2015 the decision was to recognize it. I would like to have things as they were intended but I also recognize the need for change. I think the change was long over due to reverse Roe and the 2a now is correct in recognizing the need for everyone being allowed to own a firearm. Hope this answers your question if not this is what you have

I know you are replying to TG, but I still disagree with the current misinterpretation of the second amendment. The right to marriage is not in the constitution anywhere. The right to have children isn't in there either. So it seems kind of weird to reinterpret 2A to mean the right to own a gun as if that would be more important than most rights we should possess. It was written in 1791 along with the third amendment which prevents own's home being used to quarter soldiers.

I know you like the change in interpretation and sometimes wonder would you be happy with felons living next to you owning guns or unstable folks living next to you owning guns. I disagree with not replacing Roe v Wade with something better as I don't like people playing God with women's lives. Women shouldn't have to die when a spontaneous abortion happens. 

So keep marriage and abortion out of it why did they have to rule on it? No I do not want felons living next to me but I'm perfectly fine with a law abiding citizen being armed to the hilt living next to me. 

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2024 4:36:16 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 21, 2024 12:49:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Yes, that was Burger's opinion.  It was, however, an educated one.  (And to clarify, Burger was not on the Court in 2010.  He served decades before, back when being conservative actually meant something.  Burger was nominated by Richard Nixon, and served as Chief Justice for about two decades.)  I am still more interested in the other two that you again failed to address.

1.  The Supreme Court had NEVER in over 200 years held for an individual right to own guns.

2.  Language allowing an individual right to own guns was specifically debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment.


Those are NOT opinions.  Those are facts.  There is NOTHING in the history of the Second Amendment that says what you wish it to say.  Heller was a bastardization of history, not a reflection of it.

I can sum up both with 1 answer. Things change that is why there is amendments and new decisions. The wasn't anything ever written about right to an abortion but then you had Roe then again Roe was reversed. Nothing was ever written about gay marriage being a right but in 2015 the decision was to recognize it. I would like to have things as they were intended but I also recognize the need for change. I think the change was long over due to reverse Roe and the 2a now is correct in recognizing the need for everyone being allowed to own a firearm. Hope this answers your question if not this is what you have

i think you are making a contradictory argument.

on the one hand you are saying "things change".  but on the other hand you are appealing to the original language of 2A.

i was actually taking your side.  but now i am not sure what your side is.

i again would mention that 2a went out the window with Wilson.  it has not recovered since then.  what the SCOTUS did in 2010 doesn't get us there.  not even 10% of the way there.  the entire purpose of 2a, according to Jefferson and every president for the first 120 years of the republic, was to PREVENT what Wilson did.  since then, we have been in this nebulous situation where we are unable to defend ourselves against that assault.

[scgal]

May 23, 2024 11:33:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

May 23, 2024 4:36:16 GMT -5 scgal said:

I can sum up both with 1 answer. Things change that is why there is amendments and new decisions. The wasn't anything ever written about right to an abortion but then you had Roe then again Roe was reversed. Nothing was ever written about gay marriage being a right but in 2015 the decision was to recognize it. I would like to have things as they were intended but I also recognize the need for change. I think the change was long over due to reverse Roe and the 2a now is correct in recognizing the need for everyone being allowed to own a firearm. Hope this answers your question if not this is what you have

i think you are making a contradictory argument.

on the one hand you are saying "things change".  but on the other hand you are appealing to the original language of 2A.

i was actually taking your side.  but now i am not sure what your side is.

i again would mention that 2a went out the window with Wilson.  it has not recovered since then.  what the SCOTUS did in 2010 doesn't get us there.  not even 10% of the way there.  the entire purpose of 2a, according to Jefferson and every president for the first 120 years of the republic, was to PREVENT what Wilson did.  since then, we have been in this nebulous situation where we are unable to defend ourselves against that assault.

Not contradictory at all. I do agree with the drafting of the 2a but like I said times do change and they need to evolve. To me the orgingal part of the 2a right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon are the most important the whole military does not apply now and we need to make sure the right is protected. Does that clear it up

[tallguy]

May 23, 2024 4:36:16 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 21, 2024 12:49:48 GMT -5 tallguy said:

Yes, that was Burger's opinion.  It was, however, an educated one.  (And to clarify, Burger was not on the Court in 2010.  He served decades before, back when being conservative actually meant something.  Burger was nominated by Richard Nixon, and served as Chief Justice for about two decades.)  I am still more interested in the other two that you again failed to address.

1.  The Supreme Court had NEVER in over 200 years held for an individual right to own guns.

2.  Language allowing an individual right to own guns was specifically debated AND REJECTED during the writing of the Second Amendment.


Those are NOT opinions.  Those are facts.  There is NOTHING in the history of the Second Amendment that says what you wish it to say.  Heller was a bastardization of history, not a reflection of it.

I can sum up both with 1 answer. Things change that is why there is amendments and new decisions. The wasn't anything ever written about right to an abortion but then you had Roe then again Roe was reversed. Nothing was ever written about gay marriage being a right but in 2015 the decision was to recognize it. I would like to have things as they were intended but I also recognize the need for change. I think the change was long over due to reverse Roe and the 2a now is correct in recognizing the need for everyone being allowed to own a firearm. Hope this answers your question if not this is what you have

There is a huge difference between deciding something that had never been specifically addressed such as abortion or gay marriage, and overturning something that had been addressed, such as individual gun ownership or the subsequent overturning of Roe.  If errors are made, and need to be reversed, we are rarely well-served to go backwards in history or to move away from individual rights to privacy and self-determination. 

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of what the Constitution says, and what the law is.  It is not supposed to be a place to install ideological loyalists to create a law that a president (or his supporters) wants.  Our deepest freedoms should not be up for sale, nor should they be so easily discarded.  With regard to the Second Amendment, the history is clear to anyone who wants to read it.  Those who don't want to read it are generally those who put their own interests first.   

[scgal]

May 23, 2024 11:45:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

May 23, 2024 4:36:16 GMT -5 scgal said:

I can sum up both with 1 answer. Things change that is why there is amendments and new decisions. The wasn't anything ever written about right to an abortion but then you had Roe then again Roe was reversed. Nothing was ever written about gay marriage being a right but in 2015 the decision was to recognize it. I would like to have things as they were intended but I also recognize the need for change. I think the change was long over due to reverse Roe and the 2a now is correct in recognizing the need for everyone being allowed to own a firearm. Hope this answers your question if not this is what you have

There is a huge difference between deciding something that had never been specifically addressed such as abortion or gay marriage, and overturning something that had been addressed, such as individual gun ownership or the subsequent overturning of Roe.  If errors are made, and need to be reversed, we are rarely well-served to go backwards in history or to move away from individual rights to privacy and self-determination. 

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of what the Constitution says, and what the law is.  It is not supposed to be a place to install ideological loyalists to create a law that a president (or his supporters) wants.  Our deepest freedoms should not be up for sale, nor should they be so easily discarded.  With regard to the Second Amendment, the history is clear to anyone who wants to read it.  Those who don't want to read it are generally those who put their own interests first.   

That is exactly what the SC did in Heller. People don't like it but they got it right.

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2024 11:43:44 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 23, 2024 11:33:11 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

i think you are making a contradictory argument.

on the one hand you are saying "things change".  but on the other hand you are appealing to the original language of 2A.

i was actually taking your side.  but now i am not sure what your side is.

i again would mention that 2a went out the window with Wilson.  it has not recovered since then.  what the SCOTUS did in 2010 doesn't get us there.  not even 10% of the way there.  the entire purpose of 2a, according to Jefferson and every president for the first 120 years of the republic, was to PREVENT what Wilson did.  since then, we have been in this nebulous situation where we are unable to defend ourselves against that assault.

Not contradictory at all. I do agree with the drafting of the 2a but like I said times do change and they need to evolve. To me the orgingal part of the 2a right to bear arms shall not be infringed upon are the most important the whole military does not apply now and we need to make sure the right is protected. Does that clear it up

no, because the entire reason for 2a turns on that fact.

i think it is a grave mistake.  we have been lucky it has not been used against us, so far.  but i would not count on that in the future.

[djAdvocate]

here is my substantiation for the above. Jefferson's position against standing armies is consistent, and despite what WCPS said, he never contradicted it:

"There are instruments so dangerous to the rights of the nation and which place them so totally at the mercy of their governors that those governors, whether legislative or executive, should be restrained from keeping such instruments on foot but in well-defined cases. Such an instrument is a standing army." --Thomas Jefferson to David Humphreys, 1789. ME 7:323

"I do not like [in the new Federal Constitution] the omission of a Bill of Rights providing clearly and without the aid of sophisms for... protection against standing armies." --Thomas Jefferson to James Madison, 1787. ME 6:387

"Nor is it conceived needful or safe that a standing army should be kept up in time of peace for [defense against invasion]." --Thomas Jefferson: 1st Annual Message, 1801. ME 3:334

"Standing armies [are] inconsistent with freedom and subversive of their quiet." --Thomas Jefferson: Reply to Lord North's Proposition, 1775. Papers 1:231

"The spirit of this country is totally adverse to a large military force." --Thomas Jefferson to Chandler Price, 1807. ME 11:160

"A distinction between the civil and military [is one] which it would be for the good of the whole to obliterate as soon as possible." --Thomas Jefferson: Answers to de Meusnier Questions, 1786. ME 17:90

"It is nonsense to talk of regulars. They are not to be had among a people so easy and happy at home as ours. We might as well rely on calling down an army of angels from heaven." --Thomas Jefferson to James Monroe, 1814. ME 14:207

i think Jefferson was wise and correct.
i think that Wilson, and every president since him, was foolish and wrong.

[djAdvocate]

i don't think this is a dead argument, at all.
i think it one we should be making.

either that, or we should repeal 2a.
it is inconsistent with standing armies.

[djAdvocate]

let me ask you a question, scgal:

why do you think that 2a is there?

i mean, why should civilians have the right to bear arms?
i have already answered the question.
but what is YOUR answer.

"because the 2nd amendment says so" is a circular answer.
WHY does the 2nd amendment say so?

the constitution is an instrument of the people and of governance. what purpose does 2a serve, in terms of governance?

keep in mind that the BOR are "negative rights". it specifies rights that the government does NOT have. for example, it precludes the right of the government to inhibit speech and religion. so, what right is taken from the government by the 2nd amendment?

[tallguy]

May 23, 2024 12:09:07 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 23, 2024 11:45:47 GMT -5 tallguy said:

There is a huge difference between deciding something that had never been specifically addressed such as abortion or gay marriage, and overturning something that had been addressed, such as individual gun ownership or the subsequent overturning of Roe.  If errors are made, and need to be reversed, we are rarely well-served to go backwards in history or to move away from individual rights to privacy and self-determination. 

The Supreme Court is supposed to be the arbiter of what the Constitution says, and what the law is.  It is not supposed to be a place to install ideological loyalists to create a law that a president (or his supporters) wants.  Our deepest freedoms should not be up for sale, nor should they be so easily discarded.  With regard to the Second Amendment, the history is clear to anyone who wants to read it.  Those who don't want to read it are generally those who put their own interests first.   

That is exactly what the SC did in Heller. People don't like it but they got it right.

False.

[scgal]

May 23, 2024 13:34:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let me ask you a question, scgal :

why do you think that 2a is there?

i mean, why should civilians have the right to bear arms?
i have already answered the question.
but what is YOUR answer.

"because the 2nd amendment says so" is a circular answer.
WHY does the 2nd amendment say so?

the constitution is an instrument of the people and of governance. what purpose does 2a serve, in terms of governance?

keep in mind that the BOR are "negative rights". it specifies rights that the government does NOT have. for example, it precludes the right of the government to inhibit speech and religion. so, what right is taken from the government by the 2nd amendment?

The right to bear arms is to protect oneself, loved ones, property. One cannot rely on the state to protect you. 

I don't agree with the negative rights idea, amendment 16 is all about the government. 

[billisonboard]

May 23, 2024 18:53:26 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 23, 2024 13:34:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let me ask you a question, scgal :

why do you think that 2a is there?

i mean, why should civilians have the right to bear arms?
i have already answered the question.
but what is YOUR answer.

"because the 2nd amendment says so" is a circular answer.
WHY does the 2nd amendment say so?

the constitution is an instrument of the people and of governance. what purpose does 2a serve, in terms of governance?

keep in mind that the BOR are "negative rights". it specifies rights that the government does NOT have. for example, it precludes the right of the government to inhibit speech and religion. so, what right is taken from the government by the 2nd amendment?

The right to bear arms is to protect oneself, loved ones, property. One cannot rely on the state to protect you. 

I don't agree with the negative rights idea, amendment 16 is all about the government. 

Just to remind all of the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

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.

Self? Loved ones? Property? No mention.

[tallguy]

May 23, 2024 22:22:21 GMT -5 billisonboard said:

May 23, 2024 18:53:26 GMT -5 scgal said:

The right to bear arms is to protect oneself, loved ones, property. One cannot rely on the state to protect you. 

I don't agree with the negative rights idea, amendment 16 is all about the government. 

Just to remind all of the wording of the 2nd Amendment.

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.

Self? Loved ones? Property? No mention.

All true.  Does raise one teeny little question though....  How many really need to be reminded?

[djAdvocate]

May 23, 2024 18:53:26 GMT -5 scgal said:

May 23, 2024 13:34:31 GMT -5 djAdvocate said:

let me ask you a question, scgal :

why do you think that 2a is there?

i mean, why should civilians have the right to bear arms?
i have already answered the question.
but what is YOUR answer.

"because the 2nd amendment says so" is a circular answer.
WHY does the 2nd amendment say so?

the constitution is an instrument of the people and of governance. what purpose does 2a serve, in terms of governance?

keep in mind that the BOR are "negative rights". it specifies rights that the government does NOT have. for example, it precludes the right of the government to inhibit speech and religion. so, what right is taken from the government by the 2nd amendment?

The right to bear arms is to protect oneself, loved ones, property. One cannot rely on the state to protect you. 

I don't agree with the negative rights idea, amendment 16 is all about the government. 

uh.....what?

by "negative rights", i mean that the BOR specifies what the government CAN NOT do.  there is nothing to disagree with.  it is a fact.

and i agree with your right to bear arms.  nothing i have said argues against that.  so, again:

what right is taken away from the GOVERNMENT by the 2nd amendment?

[djAdvocate]

just to review:

All of the rights in the Bill of Rights are designed as limits on government. They say what government cannot do, not what it must do. Such limits are known as negative rights, versus the positive rights of requiring government to provide jobs and healthcare.

it is not necessary to argue this point. only to understand it.

for tenn: here is your link. it is 404 for me, just like the OTHER one you requested. see if it works for you:

www.pbs.org/tpt/constitution-usa-peter-sagal/rights/#:~:text=All%20of%20the%20rights%20in,to%20provide%20jobs%20and%20healthcare.