(no subject)

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

http://reason.com/archives/2013/06/12/three-reasons-the-nothing-to-hide-crowd
http://www.cato.org/blog/why-nsa-collecting-phone-records-problem
https://www.techdirt.com/articles/20110524/00084614407/privacy-is-not-secrecy-debunking-if-youve-got-nothing-to-hide-argument.shtml
http://www.computerweekly.com/blogs/the-data-trust-blog/2009/02/debunking-a-myth-if-you-have-n.html

There are a significant number of people who respond to any revelation that government is violating the law (yes, the Constitution is part of the law) with a shrug and "I've got nothing to hide". These people are selfish fools at best. They are not looking at the bigger picture and/or aren't considering other people. Plus, they probably aren't paying attention to the fact that everyone in America is currently a criminal, that everyone violates a law with serious penalties at some point, whether you know it or not. (And the fact that that is the case is another problem, but that's outside the scope of my point here.)

Even Biden and Obama railed against what they are themselves supporting now, before they were in power. That alone should be enough to make you stop and think about what having that kind of power available can do to people.

Comments

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

It is analogous. And that makes the answer for the gun debate the same as for this one. Constitution says the government can't take our guns and the Constitution says the government can't search us without a warrant. There is no exception for the "effectiveness of the outcome" of the unconstitutional laws and policies.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

"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".

<-- That's the exact text of the 2nd Amendment. Please elaborate exactly how it translates INTO "the government can't take our guns".

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

The part after the comma.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

There are three commas there. Which one specifically?

So you take separate parts of sentences from a text and make them the only ones that matter?

OK then.

I choose "Shall not be infringed". Nothing should be infringed.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

Your version is different than the one I'm used to seeing:

As ratified by the States and authenticated by Thomas Jefferson, Secretary of State:

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.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Second_Amendment_to_the_United_States_Constitution


And as far as meaning is concerned: "the right of the people to keep and bear arms: that assuimes people have the right, then the amendment goes on to say that that right shall not be infringed.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

Great, your version is even clearer.

I have a few questions if you don't mind. What's the usefulness of the entire first part of that statement, namely "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"? Please educate the Constitutional layman. Why mention a militia, and why should it be regulated? And what does "well" regulated mean? Does the explicit mention of the necessity of a well regulated militia mean that citizens who are not part of that militia do not qualify under this right as per the 2nd Amendment?

After that, you're going to have to specify what exactly constitutes "arms". Do assault weapons count as "arms"? Machine-guns? Bazookas? Tanks? Cannon guns? Were some of those present at the time the Constitution was being written? If not, where's the adequate amendment to the 2nd Amendment that clarifies what sort of "arms" are allowed? Or in case you think that's unnecessary, does it mean they're all allowed? Including the tanks?

And ultimately, how do background checks infringe upon the right of citizens to bear arms? Does it somehow automatically result in their guns being confiscated, or is there something profound that I'm missing in the whole picture?

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

What's the usefulness of the entire first part of that statement, namely "A well regulated militia being necessary to the security of a free state"?

See War of 1812 for example.

Does the explicit mention of the necessity of a well regulated militia mean that citizens who are not part of that militia do not qualify under this right as per the 2nd Amendment?

My guess would be no, as it says "the right of the people".


After that, you're going to have to specify what exactly constitutes "arms".

This is really getting beyond the scope of my comment. As far as tanks are concerned, I would say no, not at all.

And ultimately...

No, as that has nothing to do with my comment.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

What about the 1812 war specifically do you have in mind? Again, what's the purpose of adding a line about a well regulated militia in an amendment about gun ownership, and what does that have to do with a war which was fought and lost by the advocates of slavery?

What makes you exclude tanks, as opposed to the rest? What's this arbitrary criterion that distinguishes between the various types of arms, and makes some acceptable and others unacceptable? Who's to define that? You? Based on what criteria? Why not fighter jets?

You may believe background checks have nothing to do with your comment, but I'm still willing to explore the other point of view regarding that matter. You might or might not want to address that, granted. But I'd be glad if you would not opt out of that part of the issue. Because that's something I'm still failing to understand about the stance of gun rights advocates. Namely: how exactly does the existence of background checks translate into taking away people's guns, particularly those of law-abiding citizens who don't have anything to be concerned about, as far as those background checks are concerned. Wouldn't it be good if the origin of guns in the country can be tracked, without necessarily depriving the populace of them?

[luzribeiro.livejournal.com]

As far as tanks are concerned, I would say no, not at all.

What about RPGs? Rocket launchers? Katyusha? Hand grenade? Snipers? Hey, what about predator drones? Why can't you have one of your own? They've been all around the place lately.

Where is the line? Is there a line at all? The Constitution says "arms". What does that mean? The arms that existed in the 18th century? Or does it extend to the 21st century? Why not ballistic missiles, then?

[underlankers.livejournal.com]

You mean a war we lost?

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed translates quite directly into the government can't take our guns. Please explain how it doesn't.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

I see. You'd love to have a tank.

[geezer-also.livejournal.com]

While he can, they are rather expensive.

http://cars.natemichals.com/funny/tank-ownership-primer/

[abomvubuso.livejournal.com]

Reminds me of a movie from my childhood:

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

I see you like non sequitors.

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

No, the point is very much in place, it's just that you either don't get it, or for some reason you refuse to. When you say the government can't take your arms, you'll have to specify WHICH arms it can't take. If you mean ALL arms, then you're already treading into tricky territory.

Thus, the question. Do tanks count? And what about machine-guns, bazookas, ballistic missiles, chemical weapons, sniper guns?

So the point stays, regardless of your ability to grasp it, or your desire to delve into it.

[gunslnger.livejournal.com]

No, the question "do tanks count as arms" is very different thing than saying "you'd love to have a tank". The first is a relevant discussion point. The second is a non-sequitor, as my likes or dislikes are entirely irrelevant to the issue.

So, would you rather make snipes at me/libertarians, or would you rather discuss the issue?

[mahnmut.livejournal.com]

All the talking-about-talking notwithstanding, do tanks count as arms?

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

It is analogous. And that makes the answer for the gun debate the same as for this one. Constitution says the government can't take our guns and the Constitution says the government can't search us without a warrant. There is no exception for the "effectiveness of the outcome" of the unconstitutional laws and policies.

The only thing that is analogous is the simple minded view of the U.S. Constitution by We the Amateurs vs. the simple minded view of razor blades by a baby.

We the Amateurs: Oooooohhh, the Constitution is sooooooooo simple.

A baby: Oooooohhh, these things are is sooooooooo shiny.

Interpreting the Constitution is why we have a Supreme Court.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

We don't have the Supreme Court to explain the Constitution to us. We don't need it, for example, to tell us that a newspaper can write an editorial critical of the President.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

We don't have the Supreme Court to explain the Constitution to us.

Thanks, We the Amateurs

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

The Supreme Court settles Constitutional questions. This does not make the Constitution a document whose meaning is to be decided by a small set of Ivy League graduates.

[stewstewstewdio.livejournal.com]

This does not make the Constitution a document whose meaning is to be decided by a small set of Ivy League graduates.
Really?
The Supreme Court settles Constitutional questions
You just contradicted your own statement.

[notmrgarrison.livejournal.com]

No I did not. See as an example a newspaper writing an editorial critical of the president. We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that. The Supreme Court is for more subtle questions, and for keeping the other branches in check, making sure they aren't violating the Constitution.

[dexeron.livejournal.com]

We don't need the Supreme Court to tell us that the newspaper can do that.

Yes we do, if the government ever tells the newspaper writer that he can't do that, or passes a law stating that the newspaper can't do that.