Current Topics
Returning rationality to public policy
by pondering_it_all
Today at 05:32 AM
The Passing Parade: Obituaries: 2018
by pondering_it_all
Today at 05:22 AM
Illinois celebrates first official 'Barack Obama Day'
by pondering_it_all
Today at 05:16 AM
Things not considered much
by pondering_it_all
08/12/18 11:22 PM
Ohio 12 and Kansas Governor
by Greger
08/12/18 02:03 AM
Jonah Goldberg: Farce as Tragedy
by Greger
08/12/18 01:40 AM
Historic Corruption
by rporter314
08/08/18 07:45 PM
Trump's legal woes
by rporter314
08/08/18 06:21 PM
Round Table for August, 2018
by pondering_it_all
08/08/18 07:33 AM
Lt. Joe Kenda Is Still Adjusting to Being the (Giant) Face of a TV Network
by Golem
08/07/18 11:05 PM
The moral case for removing the President
by rporter314
08/07/18 01:32 PM
KFC chooses 'Seinfeld' star Jason Alexander as newest 'Colonel Sanders'
by pondering_it_all
08/07/18 04:26 AM
Teenager at San Diego Padres Game Mortified as Mom Starts Dancing in the Stands
by pondering_it_all
08/05/18 11:57 PM
Russell Hantz on Australian Survivor
by Jeffery J. Haas
08/05/18 05:51 PM
Mueller's Trial Run
by NW Ponderer
08/05/18 04:06 PM
John Stossel: The War on Tipping
by Greger
08/05/18 02:46 AM
Happy Birthday, United States Coast Guard
by Golem
08/04/18 07:01 PM
Ghost guns
by Jeffery J. Haas
08/04/18 05:53 PM
Painting of Trump team 'Crossing the Swamp' touches off social media frenzy
by Greger
08/04/18 04:47 AM
New NFL Helmet Rule
by NW Ponderer
08/03/18 05:24 PM
Forum Stats
6248 Members
58 Forums
16337 Topics
281276 Posts

Max Online: 294 @ 12/06/17 12:57 AM
Google Adsense
Page 6 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6
Topic Options
#306287 - 04/08/18 02:41 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: Jeffery J. Haas]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 16097
Originally Posted By: Jeffery J. Haas
Originally Posted By: NW Ponderer


I read a rather long "defense" earlier today, and although it was well laid out and thorough, it was premised upon such a fantasy. The argument was centered upon the assertion that "militias", as understood by the drafters, were groups of armed individuals not under the authority of any government. That argument is belied by nearly every document, record, law, history on the subject.


You really should try to link the rest of us to that, if you can find it again. Please, it's unfair to reference it and make so many of us wish we could have read it.
So please share!
I wish I could. I do know that it was part of James Fallows' blog series from the Atlantic. I've tried to retrace my steps to find that particular one to no avail. Here's a link into the series. And, sure enough, as soon as I typed that I found it: Why Stop With the AR-15? Fallows addresses the "functionally equivalent" point directly.

I like that he generally posts the entire arguments of letter writers. Fallows is, I think, one of the best thinking journalists of our age, and fair.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#306293 - 04/09/18 05:59 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 2052
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
That stuff is just another bogus argument. The second amendment is actually pretty clear. Here is the 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

The very first words; "A well regulated" applies. All the rest actually makes no difference to anything. There was once a big argument on 'Militia' and just what it means. The upshot of that one is that EVERYBODY is part of the Militia! All the rest is the same, ie. Don' mean a thing. However, "A well regulated" means, exactly, what it says. I have always found it interesting that the gun rights folks never seems to mention that one. The problem is that this is the controller. The supremes have never messed with that one, or gun regulation. As long as you are not taking all guns away the supremes seem to be giving gov the power to regulate the hell out of guns. I consider that to be plain, simple and easily understood, even by the dimmest amongst us. The gun rights folks just ignore it. What really bothers me is how media seems to let them do just that with nary a word. What bothers me even worse is anybody who lets one of these idiots get away with ignoring it. They constantly whine about their rights "under the second amendment" and promptly leave out the beginning. I actually heard one, the other day, say; "the second amendment does not allow government to regulate our guns!".

We seem to be in a place where "the other side" just doesn't get to argue but to lie, leave out, not talk about, and ignore any and all facts. My own thought is that WE have simply gone overboard on the both sides things. In this one we have one side that actually wants to support the second and the other wants to claim support whilst ignoring the text. This is, I think, just plain wrong.


Edited by jgw (04/09/18 06:02 PM)

Top
#306296 - 04/09/18 06:45 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
pondering_it_all Offline
veteran

Registered: 02/27/06
Posts: 7745
Loc: North San Diego County
Interesting idea: Does gun ownership itself make you subject to the command structure of the militia? The whole idea for the 2nd Amendment was that the government could "call up" (draft) citizens who were armed to put down insurrections and riots. So does the individual gun owner have the option of ignoring that call?

When we had the military draft, you didn't. Isn't the militia draft the same principle? If this was upheld by the courts, I wonder how many gun owners would decide they want to avoid the draft by giving up their weapons?

Top
#306300 - 04/09/18 08:49 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
Ujest Shurly Offline
newbie

Registered: 10/16/16
Posts: 323
Loc: Sterling Heights, MI, USA
Does gun ownership... I would say No. Though it is a very interesting idea - buy a particular class of weapon, report for training and duty with your states National Guard...

As I understand/remember it, in general, any male from 16 to 45 (65 in extreme cases) can be 'called up' in times of national emergencies. Though there are limiters, normally 18 to 45 can be drafted and a 17 year old can sign up with parental/guardian permission. This last is dictated by the specific draft law in force at the time which also would layout the exemptions. Anywho, our resident JAG if I am mistaken please correct.
_________________________
Vote 2018

Life is like a PB&J sandwich
The older you get, the moldery and crustier you get.

Now, get off my grass!

Top
#306320 - 04/10/18 05:15 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
NW Ponderer Online   content
Moderator
Carpal Tunnel

Registered: 09/09/11
Posts: 16097
I think I've mentioned this before, but the real problem with the 2nd is the term "the people". In some instances, they meant individuals. In other uses, they intended it to mean "the people" generally, as in, the States. It seems clear that in this instance, given all of the other provisions of the Constitution, that "the people" meant the people collectively, not individually. A well-regulated militia, by definition, cannot be a "person" (except in Mel Gibson movies). The problem, of course, is that advocates prefer to take language "out of context" because it confuses the matter. Context is everything.
_________________________
A well reasoned argument is like a diamond: impervious to corruption and crystal clear - and infinitely rarer.

Here, as elsewhere, people are outraged at what feels like a rigged game -- an economy that won't respond, a democracy that won't listen, and a financial sector that holds all the cards. - Robert Reich

Top
#306326 - 04/10/18 07:31 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
rporter314 Offline
old hand

Registered: 03/18/03
Posts: 6447
Loc: Highlands, Tx
Context ... it is worse than that.

I remember in the early 80's a gun nut at work wanted to educate me to the "real" meaning of the 2nd. His argument was some archaic grammatical sentence construction which proved his idea about gun rights. Seems strange as English grammar was not standardized until about 1850, implying one could not use the standardized grammar to analyze previous constructions. But if anyone of these clowns had read anything from colonial times they would have been familiar with the random grammatical constructions people used.

Common sense was the lens to interpret the context and meaning.

Common sense was probably not very common at any time, but much less so today.
_________________________
ignorance is the enemy
without equality there is no liberty

Top
#306332 - 04/10/18 09:29 PM Re: Gun Control [Re: jgw]
jgw Offline
enthusiast

Registered: 05/22/06
Posts: 2052
Loc: Port Angeles, WA
Again - as far as I am concerned "well regulated" says its all. Arguments about Militia, etc. are just distractions for idiots who think that openly carrying military assault weapons, hand grenades, and artillery are a constitutional right. (sorry, probably went too far <sigh>)

Top
Page 6 of 6 < 1 2 3 4 5 6

Who's Online
0 registered (), 16 Guests and 0 Spiders online.
Key: Admin, Global Mod, Mod
Newest Members
TrentonP, Nosf50, erumonej, Jensen Breck, Albertapkr
6248 Registered Users
A2