talkpolitics | (no subject)

Entry tags:

constitution,
law

(no subject)

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.

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only

The part after the comma.

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.

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.

Edited 2013-06-13 11:24 (UTC)

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?

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.

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?

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?

This is quite comical. I made no claims about having a list, now you are asking "Who's to define that? You?".

No, but you said this.

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

How should I interpret it? You "would say"? Did you toss a coin to define what you "would say" about tanks?

Dude, there should be a reliable criterion for such a distinction. Otherwise we'd end up with a collection of arbitrary positions that have no foundation in legal practice.

My point is that as times evolve, so should legislation. If it doesn't things start to become rather complicated.

Also your unwillingness to address any of my points has been noted. Although that's kind of disappointing, fair enough, I guess.

Also your unwillingness to address any of my points

Let the semi-malfunctioning collective jump in in 3, 2, 1...

You asked a question a while back, I answered it, you came back with a boatload of questions, I answered some, you got comical.

What about the 1812 war specifically do you have in mind?

It would be the part where we were attacked by the British and needed to defend ourselves.

How should I interpret it? You "would say"? Did you toss a coin to define what you "would say" about tanks?

Dude, there should be a reliable criterion for such a distinction.

This is a silly tactic. If I were to try answering, would you go back to " Who's to define that? You?". And it's quite easy to distinguish very dark gray from light gray (a tank being very dark gray), and here you are wanting a clear line separating light gray from the rest.

Let the semi-malfunctioning collective jump in in 3, 2, 1...

And here I had this faint hope that you were really attempting a sensible conversation here. One that wouldn't eventually resort to throwing some arbitrary statements with little to zero criteria built into them, and responding with "I'm so not going to speak to you any more" whenever asked for actual details. Oh well then.

You asked a question: That's the exact text of the 2nd Amendment. Please elaborate exactly how it translates INTO "the government can't take our guns".

I answered the question. Instead of addressing what I said, you asked a bunch of other questions (derailing the issue at hand). I answered some, then a few more. and here you are with the "you can't answer, respond, have a reasonable discussion" schtick.

Well I do believe I did explain the motivation behind some of those questions, so I don't need to repeat myself. Shrug.

Quite a non-answer (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1721694.html?thread=136985182#t136985182) you gave there (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1721694.html?thread=136988510#t136988510). "Look after the comma. Look at the Civil War. Kthxbye". No wonder subsequent requests for further elaboration had been needed.

Truth is, you don't want to give a meaningful answer because you don't have one. None of you do. It's just "But, But, the Constitution!!!!" being used as a knee-jerk mantra, but whenever asked to dig somewhat deeper into the issue, things start to become rather "greyish".

The question was 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"?

The War of 1812 was my answer. How that doesn't obviously answer the question is beyond me. How you came up with the Civil War is a bit beyond me as well.

Look after the comma

Yes, after the comma where it says " the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed".

Good. But in the very next thread you assert (http://talk-politics.livejournal.com/1721694.html?thread=137000798#t137004894) that people shouldn't be allowed to own snipers. So with half your mouth you're arguing that the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed, while with the other half you're asserting that the right of the people to keep and bear some arms should be infringed.

Have you been trying to confuse me, mhmmm?

Snipers are people...

Perhaps what was meant was sniper rifle? I think some of those actually are legal if I'm not mistaken.

(no subject)

cheezyfish.livejournal.com - 2013-06-14 02:19 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

geezer-also.livejournal.com - 2013-06-14 02:58 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

cheezyfish.livejournal.com - 2013-06-14 03:40 (UTC) - Expand

(no subject)

notmrgarrison.livejournal.com - 2013-06-14 08:39 (UTC) - Expand

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?

Edited 2013-06-13 15:33 (UTC)

Snipers?

People should not be allowed to own snipers.

Why not? Aren't those "arms" too?

What about machine guns? AK47s? Flamethrowers? Hand grenades? They might need to defend themselves against multiple criminals at a time, you know. WHY DO YOU WANT GOOD PEOPLE TO STAY DEFENSELESS!??!

I wan't a sniper, just think of all the funny pranks you could pull around April Fools

Which kind of a sniper would that be? (funny and sniper just don't work for me, well snipe hunts can be fun, I guess) Perhaps you could rent one.

Why are you against slavery?

Hey, some of my best friends are against slavery.

You mean a war we lost?

Flat | Top-Level Comments Only