America's Gun Violence

HughFreakingDillon

oftenreading said:

HughFreakingDillon said:

oftenreading said:

Doctors ask about health issues all the time. Part of a doctor's role is to provide information and teaching around safety issues, particularly for parents.

Doctors ask about things like car seat use. Maybe people think they should leave it up to Ford or Toyota?

one doc I met with, and I never went back to, told me I had to promise to him that I'd wear a bike helmet and my seat belt every time I rode/drove or he would refuse to be my doctor.

I do wear a helmet, and wear my seatbelt, but my doctor doesn't dictate my fucking life choices.

Yeah, that's an odd and probably ineffective approach.

Would you have objected if he asked you about helmet and seatbelt use and gave you some info about head injuries and cycling?

not at all. it was his authoritarian approach that bothered me.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

I do not have a degree in law...but this dude does
https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/gun-ownership-right

I'm not downloading anything, but what's the guys conclusion? My take is that the original intention of the 2nd amendment applied to militias, and militias as they were defined at the time.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

I do not have a degree in law...but this dude does
https://www.prageru.com/courses/political-science/gun-ownership-right

I'm not downloading anything, but what's the guys conclusion? My take is that the original intention of the 2nd amendment applied to militias, and militias as they were defined at the time.

And you would be wrong. Shouldn't have to download anything to watch the video...
https://youtu.be/rEqGBOt32NM

Go Beavers

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

rgambs

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?

My understanding is that the 2nd amendment does not begin with "..."

It's a piece of crap amendment. It's written as an ablative absolute, which shows the causal relationship between the first clause and the second. The right to bear arms is given specifically in causal relationship with the well regulated militia. Ablative absolutes were popular at the time, which is confounding because they are shitty.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?

My understanding is that the 2nd amendment does not begin with "..."

It's a piece of crap amendment. It's written as an ablative absolute, which shows the causal relationship between the first clause and the second. The right to bear arms is given specifically in causal relationship with the well regulated militia. Ablative absolutes were popular at the time, which is confounding because they are shitty.

Well, like, that's just your opinion and stuff! Once again, the highest courts and law professors and 2/3 of Americans disagree with you...but if you think your smarter then all of them, then who am I to stand in your way.

rgambs

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?

My understanding is that the 2nd amendment does not begin with "..."

It's a piece of crap amendment. It's written as an ablative absolute, which shows the causal relationship between the first clause and the second. The right to bear arms is given specifically in causal relationship with the well regulated militia. Ablative absolutes were popular at the time, which is confounding because they are shitty.

Well, like, that's just your opinion and stuff! Once again, the highest courts and law professors and 2/3 of Americans disagree with you...but if you think your smarter then all of them, then who am I to stand in your way.

That is just a grammatical analysis and it isn't opinion, the courts, however, use their opinions to judge and weigh intent, not just content.

rgambs

What the Founders said and what that means is objective, what they meant is subjective.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?

And if it was 2007 my understanding was in alignment with the courts. You can feel validated all you want that your toy is now a right, but know that's a result of the NRA buying off congress starting in the late seventies so they could have their agenda reflected in supreme court nominees.

PJPOWER

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?

And if it was 2007 my understanding was in alignment with the courts. You can feel validated all you want that your toy is now a right, but know that's a result of the NRA buying off congress starting in the late seventies so they could have their agenda reflected in supreme court nominees.

And.....it is not 2007. You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. So would it be okay for Bloomberg and Soros to buy off congress to have their agendas reflected in Supreme Court nominees?

mace1229

My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

Go Beavers

PJPOWER said:

Go Beavers said:

PJPOWER said:

rgambs said:

Go Beavers said:

Interesting that Eugene really zips on by the "well regulated" part of the amendment. And I'm not necessarily wrong in my interpretation. The courts supported that interpretation before Heller in '08. If scotus flips on that decision in the future, does that make me right again?

It's funny, if you got your info solely from a gunner, you would think the 2nd amendment begins with "..."

The highest courts in the United States and plenty of lawyers disagree with your stance. Do you have a better understanding than them?

And if it was 2007 my understanding was in alignment with the courts. You can feel validated all you want that your toy is now a right, but know that's a result of the NRA buying off congress starting in the late seventies so they could have their agenda reflected in supreme court nominees.

And.....it is not 2007. You are starting to sound like a conspiracy theorist. So would it be okay for Bloomberg and Soros to buy off congress to have their agendas reflected in Supreme Court nominees?

I'm pointing out where your validation with guns as a right comes from. It's not a conspiracy when it's all out there and documented. I don't think you'll be telling me the NRA doesn't lobby and they don't give money to politicians. Their public agenda aligns with their legal push over time. If you think the court suddenly became enlightened, go ahead.

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

Again, what's clearly written is that it applies to the militia. This also makes sense in it's original context. It's a stretch to say the original intention applied to the individual, but if people think it does now doesn't change it for me. If you need to find a english professor that picks apart the poorly written amendment, that's fine, too. The majority of the population also wants stricter gun control, and most probably don't know what it actually says.

mace1229

I just have to disagree. I hear far fewer with your argument that it was intended just for militia. I've always heard far more state what the guy in the video did, which is the militia statement is the justification for the right of an individual to own a gun. Most against it just argue that the amendment is archaic and does not apply to modern society, seeing as how we don't have militias anymore.

Go Beavers

mace1229 said:

I just have to disagree. I hear far fewer with your argument that it was intended just for militia. I've always heard far more state what the guy in the video did, which is the militia statement is the justification for the right of an individual to own a gun. Most against it just argue that the amendment is archaic and does not apply to modern society, seeing as how we don't have militias anymore.

Anecdotal evidence is usually meaningless about a topic like this. People refer to it as archaic, probably because it's the only amendment that refers to an object related to technology. Of course they had no idea what arms would look like in 2017.

rgambs

mace1229 said:

My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.

PJPOWER

rgambs said:

mace1229 said:

My toy is "now" a right? It's been a right for well over 200 years. This isn't a new right that was just implemented. Not time in history has this right been revoked.
Vast majority of Americans read and understand this amendment to give the people the right to bear arms. NRA didn't buy off congress and judges.
If you oppose this right your best shot is to supply reasons why this right is no longer necessary than to dispute what is clearly written.

It isn't clearly written the way you want it to be, it is only clear in that way when you use your precious dot dot dots in place of the first clause. With the first clause intact, it is clearly written that the right to bear arms is given in the context of a well regulated militia. That those rights shall not be infringed is contradictory to the initial portion of the amendment. That is why it is a piece of crap that is still argued over, because it was not clearly written.

This has been explained time after time and only a couple of you do not get it. On the flip side, why do you ignore the part about "the right of the people"? As far as militia's go...
mi·li·tia n.

1. An army composed of ordinary citizens rather than professional soldiers.

2. A military force that is not part of a regular army and is subject to call for service in an emergency.

3. The whole body of physically fit civilians eligible by law for military service.

[From the Latin term for warfare, military service, soldier.]

The American Heritage® Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition
This leads me to believe that their intent was directed at all able bodied males of the nation. Even today, all males over 18 have to sign up for a possible draft and all Americans could theoretically be called to arms if a threat warranted. It would make much more sense for them to already be armed in such a crisis instead of trying to arm the population at a moment's notice. Of course the threat was different then than today, but I believe the idea still holds true. The video I posted actually did cover this pretty well as apposed to what Go Beavers said (or blocked due to denial). Either way, militia in the context of the time does not fit today's definition. And the definition of "the people" has also expanded over time to include women, black people, etc. Of course the right to be armed can be limited (just like there are limits to free speech)...but infringed suggests extreme limitations...to what extent is the only thing I'm really interested in debating anymore.

unsung

My State Constitution says that I am the militia. Case closed.