Penn and Teller do a very good job at explaining the Second Amendment

[jem]

that is a lot of words, piezoe. Yet once again we read leftist non sequitors in support of trashing our constitution and our country in favor of big govt fascism.
you called me out so, I will once again have to explain why you and your leftist friends can not stand up to truth and fact.

You seem to be saying scalia did a good job... but practical considerations nullify his opinion. Your practical thought is that you seem to think citizens with weapons and semi automatics could not stand up to an an occupying force such as the US army or an outside force? Is that what you are saying? really? It seems to me I can think of two recent ventures by Bush to the contrary.

Then you go on further to suggest that since the citizens can not protect themselves there is no reason to follow the constitution and protect the citizens rights to bear arms. Note... just because an armed resistance to a fascist oppressor could be a long shot does not mean you get to trample on the rights of those people potential resistance. That is ridiculous logic.
The people have a right to fight for their liberty... that is how this country was founded.... and it is part of the reason the western world came to know the freedoms embodied in our Constitution. The price of freedom is vigilence. Even if the govt is buying up all the bullets and telling the army that those who believe in god and the constitution are no longer worth of donations.

Do you really believe the leftist tripe you read in slate. You can take one unfounded supposition about the real world and then trample on the constitution....

Its sort of like slate and the washingtons post and guys like you think believe two wrongs justifies a fascist coup d' etat.

And by the way following the constitution is what the court is supposed to do.

I think what you are getting at is actually the argument Scalia used to essentially cut the 2nd Amendment into two parts. The part before the comma and the part after the comma. He then went on to expound on his own perspective of 2nd Amendment history. He refers to the dichotomy in the interpretation of the need to raise a militia phrase, and went on to use arguments that were put forth at the time the Amendment was being debated.

I've read Scalia's entire Opinion, which was the majority opinion, but I have not read all, or hardly any actually, of the existing historical record. I imagine you have, and you probably have as accurate a view of what transpired as anyone in these forums. In the end, Scalia fell back on the belief of some in the original debate who believed that the need for a militia might arise out of the peoples need to resist a federal tyranny.

The ambiguity problem for the Amendment arises out of the phrase before the comma. Is that phrase referring to a States militia for defense against the federal government, or is that phrase referring to the raising of a federal militia, or is it both. In the end, my impression is that Scalia believed it wasn't one or the other, but both. Therefore -- and believe me his Opinion dragged on for many pages and it isn't easy to distill -- I believe he was falling back on original intent of at least some of the original correspondents who wanted the "militia" to be interpreted as a State's militia to defend against federal tyranny. The concern of that faction could be argued to be still valid today, and Scalia, allowed that argument to stand! Nevertheless practical considerations strain ones credulity; imagine citizens with semiautomatic rifles and pistols being able to effectively resist the power of federal troops.

Scalia's argument is essentially one that disregards a federal militia, since there is now no need to arm the populace for that purpose, but acknowledges the other meaning of "militia": the raising of a citizens or States' militia to defend against federal tyranny. To retain his membership in the "Strict Constructionist Club," Scalia did not have to say that a concern more than two hundred years ago was also a concern today, he merely inferred it. Thanks to Antonin Scalia we will keep our guns.

In my own, of course overly humble, opinion, what he really did, as the Court has done so often, is find a clever way to bring our obsolescent Constitution in line with modern reality, and vice versa; in so doing he brought the Amendment up-to-date while leaving it entirely intact, but perhaps a little bruised. True, the undemocratic, judicial process he used may have produced a flawed result, depending on who you talk to. But regardless, the efficiency of the Courts actions compared to the otherwise cumbersome, but democratic, amendment process is something to marvel at. It's as if Scalia had said, as he actually has in other matters, "There, it's done! Get over it!"

Have you read Scalia's opinion? If you have, I'd be interested in your view of it. If not, I think you, because of your knowledge of 2nd Amendment history, would find it very interesting.

You have thoroughly convinced me of the ineffectiveness of piecemeal gun control legislation. I remain convinced, however, that effective gun control legislation is possible without violating the second Amendment, but I am equally convinced it's not going to happen in our time.

I think, by the way, Scalia's opinion is defective in a way I haven't yet touched on in this post, but I did mention it in responding to Jem. I was expecting Jem to become "hyperbolically ad hominemistic", to coin a phrase, on reading my response, but I've heard nothing yet. (The defect I see, has to do with post revolutionary concerns about arms falling into the hands of slaves, indentured servants and indians and the then-in-place protections against this, imperfect as they were. Those fundamental protections in post revolutionary times stemmed from disenfranchisement of the dispossessed. But, of course, those protections no longer exist! If Scalia was determined to construct an historical foundation for his Opinion, then it behooved him, to include all of the relevant history. Had he done that, he should have had a more difficult time renovating our 2nd Amendment in light of current realities. Today's near equivalent of the post revolutionary dispossessed population is armed to the teeth!

 

[Scataphagos]

The US citizenry SHOULD BE ARMED TO THE TEETH... MORE THAN WE ARE NOW.

If the people are sufficiently armed, government may think twice... fearing push-back from an armed populace.

Take away the arms, and the government can commit any atrocity at whim.... without fear of repercussions.

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

 

[jem]

The US citizenry SHOULD BE ARMED TO THE TEETH... MORE THAN WE ARE NOW.

If the people are sufficiently armed, government may think twice... fearing push-back from an armed populace.

Take away the arms, and the government can commit any atrocity at whim.... without fear of repercussions.

"When government fears the people, there is liberty. When the people fear the government, there is tyranny."

lucrum has shown us with his posts that throughout history... fascists govts first acts are to start disarming the people.

its amazing to me that people like piezoe and polticians like the democrat party are so ready to disarm the people. Who are they working for?

 

[LEAPup]

lucrum has shown us with his posts that throughout history... fascists govts first acts are to start disarming the people.

its amazing to me that people like piezoe and polticians like the democrat party are so ready to disarm the people. Who are they working for?

The next time some piece of evil shit goes and shoots up some school, I can imagine Onazi will use that as his excuse to get his pen out, and ban all semi autos across the board. Communism has taken America by storm, and it boggles the mind that dems, and their lunatic supporters are getting away with it! One thing's for sure: I WON'T GIVE UP ANY GUNS I OWN!!!!! After America's disarmed, it's carte Blanche for the nazis here to do whatever the fuck they want to do to us with ZERO worries.

 

[Lucrum]

...Have you read Scalia's opinion? If you have, I'd be interested in your view of it.

I have not.

If not, I think you, because of your knowledge of 2nd Amendment history, would find it very interesting.

Maybe, but I'm inclined to think the opinions of the founding fathers on the topic. Which I have read. Are far more interesting.

You have thoroughly convinced me of the ineffectiveness of piecemeal gun control legislation.

And people say P&R is a complete waste of time.

I remain convinced, however, that effective gun control legislation is possible without violating the second Amendment...

In theory, maybe. In practice I don't think so. Not for the most part anyway.
Too many, if not most, of our laws and regulations are written for the sake of politics and or raw control by government. Not for the sake and benefit of the populace.

 

[bigarrow]

that is a lot of words, piezoe. Yet once again we read leftist non sequitors in support of trashing our constitution and our country in favor of big govt fascism.
you called me out so, I will once again have to explain why you and your leftist friends can not stand up to truth and fact.

You seem to be saying scalia did a good job... but practical considerations nullify his opinion. Your practical thought is that you seem to think citizens with weapons and semi automatics could not stand up to an an occupying force such as the US army or an outside force? Is that what you are saying? really? It seems to me I can think of two recent ventures by Bush to the contrary.

Then you go on further to suggest that since the citizens can not protect themselves there is no reason to follow the constitution and protect the citizens rights to bear arms. Note... just because an armed resistance to a fascist oppressor could be a long shot does not mean you get to trample on the rights of those people potential resistance. That is ridiculous logic.
The people have a right to fight for their liberty... that is how this country was founded.... and it is part of the reason the western world came to know the freedoms embodied in our Constitution. The price of freedom is vigilence. Even if the govt is buying up all the bullets and telling the army that those who believe in god and the constitution are no longer worth of donations.

Do you really believe the leftist tripe you read in slate. You can take one unfounded supposition about the real world and then trample on the constitution....

Its sort of like slate and the washingtons post and guys like you think believe two wrongs justifies a fascist coup d' etat.

And by the way following the constitution is what the court is supposed to do.

Also a lot of words.

 

[Lucrum]

Also a lot of words.

I have to laugh as only days ago pie hole was giving you reading recommendations.

"As if..."

 

[jem]

but my words were not a rhetorical device designed to hide the logical ju jitsu piezoe pulled on the reader. This little ju jitsu is a device I see leftist writers deploy on a frequent basis.

The pattern is - review the law, the case or the ruling or whatever it is. Try to appear impartial as you review the pros and cons of insignificant points.... then bring up the main point and then argue some illogical con that you just pulled out you leftist playbook and act like that con... is legit.

Then go on for a few more paragraphs acting like you con is factual and a legit basis to critique the established law, rule or decision.

Also a lot of words.

 

[Lucrum]

"Dunn verdict renews call for gun reform" blares the teaser headline for the number one item in the lightbox at MSNBC.com.

The corresponding story by Michele Richinick was front-loaded with calls from liberal activists to exploit the outcome of a murder trial to promote an effort to repeal Florida's Stand Your Ground law, which was not even invoked as a defense in the recently-concluded trial of Michael Dunn

Read more: http://newsbusters.org/#ixzz2tcv6lvmY

 

[piezoe]

Jem, I've never read "Slate" whatever it is. They must be reading me. Perhaps I should copyright my posts to prevent them from copying me.

If you're going to respond to my posts you should try to do so intelligently. You completely missed the flaw in my argument.