|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/916005625481502720 I would love to see the tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause that would made that legal.
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:46
|
|
you wanna do this? Let's loving do this.
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:the means to effectively achieve it That's why we get rid of EVERYONE's guns. Rent-A-Cop posted:I would love to see the tortured interpretation of the Commerce Clause that would made that legal. Congress would pass it and it would be invalid under commerce but SCOTUS will declare the prinicipal valid under equal protection.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Syenite posted:I like having a couple guns w/ammo in the house because there are actual nazis in the whitehouse. What impact do your guns have on President Donald J. Trump?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:47
|
|
|
Leon Trotsky 2012 posted:What impact do your guns have on President Donald J. Trump? I was gonna make a joke about fending off trump from my property with them Also it's not that the president himself is a threat, more the extremely bigoted and white police in my region who'd be A-OK with rounding up all the undesirables. Syenite fucked around with this message at 19:54 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:50
|
|
|
Syenite posted:I like having a couple guns w/ammo in the house because there are actual nazis in the whitehouse. Good luck with that, Rambo. The US army quivers in its boots at the thought of your arsenal.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:It's an explanatory clause that in no way restricts the nature of the individual right articulated in the subsequent clause. This has been subject to extensive legal, historical, and grammatical analysis and is wholly uncontroversial outside of internet smuglords going for idiotic "well you aren't in a regulated militia" one liners, and some of the stupider members of congress. Justice Stevens is an internet smuglord: quote:When each word in the text is given full effect, the Amendment is most naturally read to secure to the people a right to use and possess arms in conjunction with service in a well-regulated militia. So far as appears, no more than that was contemplated by its drafters or is encompassed within its terms. Even if the meaning of the text were genuinely susceptible to more than one interpretation, the burden would remain on those advocating a departure from the purpose identified in the preamble and from settled law to come forward with persuasive new arguments or evidence. The textual analysis offered by respondent and embraced by the Court falls far short of sustaining that heavy burden. And the Court’s emphatic reliance on the claim "that the Second Amendment ... codified a pre-existing right," ante, at 19 [refers to p. 19 of the opinion], is of course beside the point because the right to keep and bear arms for service in a state militia was also a pre-existing right.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:54
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Good luck with that, Rambo. The US army quivers in its boots at the thought of your arsenal. Ah yes, clearly because I can't fend off the army with a couple guns that means guns are useless when poo poo goes sour.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:56
|
|
|
Office Pig posted:https://twitter.com/NBCNightlyNews/status/916005625481502720 Lol they don't even pretend to mean only concealed or even licensed carry. That'd be a nationwide license-free open carry law.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:57
|
|
|
Consensus agrees on how and why this is interpreted today, not on the framers intent or rightful interpretation. Textualism is not a subject for this thread. As you pointed out, this was intended to ensure the capacity to arm semiprofessional warfighters. It is well documented and accepted the 2A was a concession to antifederalist fears of federal invasion of the states. Textualism is a joke, non-shill actual originalist theory would recognize the intent to provide for essentially the National Guard, and it's actually in the camp of Living Constitutionalism and stare decisis that the present interpretation of 2A has its strongest legs. In a sense--and I know this comes across as tautological--it's when we culturally reject stare decisis that we actually get progress like "blacks are people" done, so be aware that I'm not trying to represent this as how a court should rule on 2A right now. I'm telling you where we're headed as mass shootings continue and people get fed up enough to pass legislation that treats 2A as a privilege.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 19:58
|
|
|
Nevvy Z posted:Congress would pass it and it would be invalid under commerce but SCOTUS will declare the prinicipal valid under equal protection. Ding ding ding "Didn't you know that in some circumstances, one state can lord over another extrajudicially? *swallows mouthful of cash* We didn't either!"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:00
|
|
|
Syenite posted:Ah yes, clearly because I can't fend off the army with a couple guns that means guns are useless when poo poo goes sour. If the government "comes for you" they will come like the police do for drug dealers - with overwhelming force, and even if you escape, you will be hunted down. The solution is to not let it get to that stage.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:03
|
|
|
Suicide by nazi-cops acceptable.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:05
|
|
|
isn't concealed carry reciprocity walking all over states rights by making the state with the loosest CCW standards the de facto nationwide standard?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:10
|
|
|
Potato Salad posted:But textualism This was a low content badpost and I'm sorry
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:11
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:isn't concealed carry reciprocity walking all over states rights by making the state with the loosest CCW standards the de facto nationwide standard? Yeah, that is the point.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:12
|
|
|
Maybe mods should move gun control chat to the same containment thread they shoved leftism into.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:16
|
|
|
Now it is Valium's fault this guy was nuts. The press is really reaching for stuff here.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:21
|
|
|
I'm not going to try to argue point by point the merits of comparing a car to a gun. You shouldn't either because they're not the same thing. Cars aren't designed, built, optimized and sold on the premise of killing things. This is a fundamentally different object and the comparisons all fall apart when you stop and realize that. You need to treat it at a deadly weapon and not just a tool that can be deadly because of the forces involved.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:29
|
|
|
Instant Sunrise posted:isn't concealed carry reciprocity walking all over states rights by making the state with the loosest CCW standards the de facto nationwide standard? Republicans don't actually care about states rights when the state doesn't do what they like.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:31
|
|
|
Syenite posted:Maybe mods should move gun control chat to the same containment thread they shoved leftism into. But this is USPOL.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:33
|
|
|
State's rights was born a racist dog whistle, and lives on as a racist dog whistle with a side order of "how can we skull gently caress the poors harder with Delaware?"
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:36
|
|
|
Well then, I wonder what the appropriate reaction to this would be? Ah, yes, I know what it is.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:37
|
|
|
Ugato posted:I'm not going to try to argue point by point the merits of comparing a car to a gun. You shouldn't either because they're not the same thing. Cars aren't designed, built, optimized and sold on the premise of killing things. This is a fundamentally different object and the comparisons all fall apart when you stop and realize that. You need to treat it at a deadly weapon and not just a tool that can be deadly because of the forces involved. Well, maybe then guns should be at least as regulated as cars. Because currently they are much less regulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:41
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Good luck with that, Rambo. The US army quivers in its boots at the thought of your arsenal. I mean a handful of Jewish partisans in the Warsaw ghetto (I think it was Warsaw) held off the Nazi army for about a month with some rifles, some pistols, and I think a few grenades. It could happen again. Now, generally the doomsday prepper types who stockpile guns probably aren't capable at asymmetric warfare and probably couldn't pull it off, and also would likely be on the side of the Nazis if they ever managed to go full fashy.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:43
|
|
|
Moatman posted:I mean a handful of Jewish partisans in the Warsaw ghetto (I think it was Warsaw) held off the Nazi army for about a month with some rifles, some pistols, and I think a few grenades. It could happen again. Did they have unmanned drones in WW2?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:47
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:Well, maybe then guns should be at least as regulated as cars. Because currently they are much less regulated.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:50
|
|
|
B B posted:Did they have unmanned drones in WW2? Ya but they weren't as good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:52
|
|
|
In 2027 the US Congress passes the final measure to amend the 2nd amendment to read ""A well regulated Army, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Gundams, shall not be infringed."
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
B B posted:Did they have unmanned drones in WW2? Yes, but they needed actual pilots to ferry them to the target area. It's how Joe Kennedy Jr died, his plane blew up before he had parachuted out. RuanGacho posted:In 2027 the US Congress passes the final measure to amend the 2nd amendment to read ""A well regulated Army, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Gundams, shall not be infringed." Don't you mean in the year After Colony 195?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:53
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:You're wrong. How so? Are guns taxed, registered, and insured?
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Party Plane Jones posted:Yes, but they needed actual pilots to ferry them to the target area. It's how Joe Kennedy Jr died, his plane blew up before he had parachuted out. Maybe PT 7
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 20:54
|
|
|
Dead Reckoning posted:Self defense and the means to effectively achieve it are a right, not a privilege, full stop. To be perfectly clear, I think is true even absent the protection of the right to arms by the 2nd Amendment. Generally speaking, the courts have held that the law does not contain useless, frivolous text unless they have no choice but to assume it does. Aside from introductory paragraphs and preambles, usually when you get to the "law" part of the law, its pretty straightforward without explanations. If you want an explanation, go to the congressional record. If you are convicted of doing this, the penalty is that, this department gets this much money for FY2018 and they may spend it on these items, the Federal government is forbidden from doing this to people, etc. The militia clause is unnecessary to achieve a blanket guarantee of an individual right to have guns, you could literally delete all of it. Since that is true, it is preferred to find a legal meaning for every word in the entire amendment. Despite this, Scalia insisted that the court had no choice but to conclude that the militia clause was an unnecessary explanation (ie "since we need a militia, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed"), because the alternative interpretation from the left could not possibly be true because at the time "the militia" did not mean an armed force controlled by the state, it meant every armed able-bodied man. I don't know if he's right. Maybe he is, I've always thought it was a close call and the left's argument was a bit of a stretch, but those arguing for an individual rather than a collective right have a heavier burden because there's not supposed to be dead text in an amendment. Rigel fucked around with this message at 21:15 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:03
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:How so? Are guns taxed, registered, and insured? edit: And to be clear, there's very good reason there's very few/no restrictions on possessing/operating cars on private property that plainly don't apply to guns, but claiming you need to pay taxes, register, and insure cars to possess or use them is just false. twodot fucked around with this message at 21:09 on Oct 5, 2017 |
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:06
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ya but they weren't as good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite quote:The plan called for B-17 aircraft that had been taken out of operational service: various nicknames existed such as "robot", "baby", "drone" or "weary Willy"[3] When the sun shines, the Weary Willies strike.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
Trabisnikof posted:Ya but they weren't as good https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_Aphrodite I apparently need to brush up on my WW2 history. If my gun nut family members in Bumfuck, Virginia are any indication, there would probably be a whole lot of violent reaction to attempting to confiscate guns. They're all terribly out of shape, though, and the idea of the trying to do any sort of sustained resistance makes me laugh. Those right-wing militias are pretty scary, though, and they've been organizing and stockpiling for decades.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:11
|
|
|
DACK FAYDEN posted:When the sun shines, the Weary Willies strike. Now that's a mascot for America today! 
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:12
|
|
|
BarbarianElephant posted:How so? Are guns taxed, registered, and insured? Car/Gun analogies are stupid. Firearms in the US may not be as regulated as you'd like but they are heavily regulated and penalties for loving up tend to be harsh.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
Rent-A-Cop posted:What OAL is a felony for your car? How many American parts does it require to be kegal? How many law enforcement agencies did the dealer call before he could legally sell it to you? How long did it take to get a tax stamp for the muffler? It's 100% legal for me to go to a car show and buy a municipal bus and start working routes. My illegal food truck business is booming as well. We are food grade "X".
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:It's 100% legal for me to go to a car show and buy a municipal bus and start working routes. Illegal food trucks are the best kind.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:38
|
|
|
|
| # ? May 20, 2024 22:47 |
|
|
The best part about gun chat is the outliers who'd normally be posting about guillotines and siezing the means of production who suddenly become deeply concerned with constitutional rights, legal precedent and the efficacy of government regulation.
|
|
#
?
Oct 5, 2017 21:40
|
|
