|
Jaxyon posted:The 2nd does not use the term "firearms". As I understand your reasoning, your assertion is that guns are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. This claim is inaccurate because the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" of which "firearms" or "fire-arms" is a subset and implicitly included. This is supported by the definition for the term "arms." Gun is a synonym for "firearms" or "fire-arms". Given that, the term "arms" in the amendment includes guns. EFB
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I’m not sure I understand your point here. If firearms are guns, and firearms are a subset of arms, doesn’t that answer whatever question you’re trying to get answered? A person made a claim that "guns" were in the constitution. They are not. You could make an argument that guns might be referred to when "arms" was said, but arms doesn't include just guns. They're not directly synonymous. I agree the original claim was bad, I'm not the one who made it. OldMold posted:Your implication that "arms" should be interpreted to exclude firearms is a much more extraordinary assertion than the opposite, and it is you who must provide burden of proof. I never made or implied that. Burden of proof rests on the original claim. quote:Interpreting "arms" to include firearms, given the colloquial usage of "arms" in contemporary writing at the time (and for hundreds of years since) to include all offensive weapons is quite reasonable. The examples given in the contemporary dictionary generally reference quotes from before guns were widespread. You can try to make this argument but you'll need more evidence. quote:Example, from Madison's own writings on militias: I agree he's referring to all sorts of weapons. Not specifically guns. But "guns" was the claim. quote:If you have an interesting take that the interpretation SHOULD NOT include firearms, please elaborate. Just saying "nuh-uh" on a commonly accepted definition is trolling. I've asked for proof for a claim, and I'm getting a lot of "you should accept my interpretation of the only evidence I have" which isn't good enough to support the claim. Kalman posted:And the First doesn’t use the term “writing” or “wearing a jacket saying gently caress the Draft”, it says “speech”, but because we’re not idiots and understand that “speech” includes writing and expressive actions, we apply the speech clause to written words and expressive actions. The claim was that guns are part of the constitution. At best we can say that guns may be part of the constitution, and that the amendment is unclear. Per the rules of D&D precision is important.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:43
|
|
|
And the reason it means "guns" in most people's minds is because there is no national brass knuckle association funding test cases and MAKING a 2a deal out of things that are not guns. Wasn't there like one 2a case involving a homeless person's right to carry a taser? I can't recall another non-gun 2a case for the life of me
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:44
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Not while the traitor party holds the majority of state governments, nope. Oh it's an absolute political impossibility, even just among Democrats. But then, so is any scintilla of progress of any sort in the next decade. One can dream.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:47
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:As I understand your reasoning, your assertion is that guns are not mentioned in the U.S. Constitution. This claim is inaccurate because the 2nd Amendment refers to "arms" of which "firearms" or "fire-arms" is a subset and implicitly included. This is supported by the definition for the term "arms." Gun is a synonym for "firearms" or "fire-arms". Given that, the term "arms" in the amendment includes guns. If the 2A had said "firearms", this might be a slightly different conversation. Alas, it does not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:48
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:If the 2A had said "firearms", this might be a slightly different conversation. I’m completely lost by what you’re hoping to accomplish here. What is the point you’re making? For what aim? Who are you trying to convince of what exactly?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:49
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:I’m completely lost by what you’re hoping to accomplish here. What is the point you’re making? For what aim? Who are you trying to convince of what exactly? I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. I'm just asking someone to support a claim they made, with evidence. My argument is that that poster cannot support the claim they made. And so far, they and a whole group of other people have had a real problem doing so.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:52
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Starting to think it may be time for an entirely new Constitution altogether! Jaxyon posted:I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. e: nope, I wasn't. Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:The state can have an interest against constitutional rights, I don't disagree with that, but a citizen having to have a 'special need' to be allowed to have a constitutional right is ridiculous and entirely inconsistent with how rights are supposed to work. The main issue in this case is whether everyone has rights or just the select people the state says are allowed to have rights. i.e. the good ol boys club, rich and well connected people. ilkhan fucked around with this message at 01:06 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:54
|
|
|
ilkhan posted:We would end up with at least 2, if not more. But again, its such a wide meaningless term that it could mean literally anything that can be used as a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:04
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:But again, its such a wide meaningless term that it could mean literally anything that can be used as a weapon.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:But again, its such a wide meaningless term that it could mean literally anything that can be used as a weapon. Yep. ilkhan posted:Im pretty sure Im the person you're referring to, and I will concede the string "gun" does not appear in the constitution. Its superset "arms" which refers to guns and more does. No it wasn't you. You just jumped in on it.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:06
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm not trying to convince anyone of anything. The trouble is, the claim that guns are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment (via the inclusion of "firearms" in the definition of "arms") is supported by the terms as used at the time. More directly, it is also supported by the Virginia debates on ratifying the Constitution (before the 2nd Amendment was a thing) when George Mason discussed a fear of Congress destroying the militia by failing to supply or arm it (Ratification by Pauline Meier, pg. 282). Framing this slightly differently, what leads you to believe that when Congress debated and wrote the 2nd Amendment, using the word "arms," that they meant to exclude guns from that term?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:18
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:Framing this slightly differently, what leads you to believe that when Congress debated and wrote the 2nd Amendment, using the word "arms," that they meant to exclude guns from that term? he is not - he is literally saying the constitution does not contain the word "guns" anywhere in it. that's it. that's his entire point. best to ignore.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:22
|
|
|
I support an unlimited 2nd amendment with everyone being allowed to possess anthrax
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:29
|
|
|
It’s really the same as arguing that the Bible doesn’t mention North America when some fundamentalist says “Jesus died to save America from its sins.” Ok. Sure. What is the point. The fundamentalist isn’t going to reevaluate his position and why would he when the point is meaningless. It’s not even a gotcha it’s just “why is this important”
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:38
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:It’s really the same as arguing that the Bible doesn’t mention North America when some fundamentalist says “Jesus died to save America from its sins.” Ok. Sure. What is the point. The fundamentalist isn’t going to reevaluate his position and why would he when the point is meaningless. It’s not even a gotcha it’s just “why is this important” I think the point is that claiming a "strict textualist" reading of the amendment is absurd because if so you're against laws restricting weaponry of any sort, although I can't speak for Jaxyon
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 01:42
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:The trouble is, the claim that guns are mentioned in the 2nd Amendment (via the inclusion of "firearms" in the definition of "arms") is supported by the terms as used at the time. More directly, it is also supported by the Virginia debates on ratifying the Constitution (before the 2nd Amendment was a thing) when George Mason discussed a fear of Congress destroying the militia by failing to supply or arm it (Ratification by Pauline Meier, pg. 282). A Davey Crockett personal nuclear delivery system is technically a gun, which means it should be protected under the 2nd amendment, using those terms. The real answer is that they had no conception of the destructive forces personal firearms would eventually carry compared to their contemporary firearms, and it's extremely silly to pretend that because "guns" existed as muskets that fired 1 shot poorly every 30 seconds, they also intended to include every gun that would ever exist
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:03
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I think the point is that claiming a "strict textualist" reading of the amendment is absurd because if so you're against laws restricting weaponry of any sort, although I can't speak for Jaxyon This is basically my take. It's a trainwreck of an amendment that's basically a rorschach test, and anyone saying that it means the government must or must not do something, with no room for interpretation, is just saying what they want the outcome to be. If that outcome is more guns and more violence, welp
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 03:36
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:The real answer is that they had no conception of the destructive forces personal firearms would eventually carry compared to their contemporary firearms, and it's extremely silly to pretend that because "guns" existed as muskets that fired 1 shot poorly every 30 seconds, they also intended to include every gun that would ever exist The wacky thing is that this may not be the case. Madison was dead set on the concept of regular people having the ability to oppose a federal military - going as far as to suggest that the standing army be capped at 1/25th of the nation's "arm bearing" population, so that it can be outnumbered if things turn sour. Its not that crazy of an idea that he may well have considered that firearms will continue to get deadlier, but wanted equal access to the same weapons for the army and the rest of the population so that federal tyranny could be effectively resisted.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:00
|
|
|
OldMold posted:The wacky thing is that this may not be the case. Madison was dead set on the concept of regular people having the ability to oppose a federal military - going as far as to suggest that the standing army be capped at 1/25th of the nation's "arm bearing" population, so that it can be outnumbered if things turn sour. But that is where the "well regulated militia" part comes in
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:03
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:But that is where the "well regulated militia" part comes in Not to Madison - while true he viewed state militias as a bulwark against federal ambitions, he was clearly proud of most americans being armed: "...the advantage of being armed, which the Americans possess over the people of almost every other nation..." Check out Federalist Papers #46, last three paragraphs - gives a lot of insight into his beliefs and motivation.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 04:18
|
|
|
OldMold posted:Not to Madison - while true he viewed state militias as a bulwark against federal ambitions, he was clearly proud of most americans being armed: Mmmmmm..... most Americans were not armed. Might want to rephrase that with some qualifiers.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 05:07
|
|
|
The second amendment protects carrying literal arms, it doesn't say anything about weapons. If the founding fathers had meant to protect something else, they would have said so. If people want to change the constitution from the original document, they can pass a constitutional amendment. If you're a member of a militia, you can carry one extra arm, but no extra hands.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 05:11
|
|
|
Gerund posted:Arms include hand grenades. Historical militias used hand grenades. If you want tiny little future pistols you have to allow for modern hand grenades. You can legally buy grenades, I note. Grenade launchers and artillery as well. Same as machine guns. They're NFA registered items, so you'll need a tax stamp, and they're too expensive to be anything but rich people's party favors for the wanna be soldier set. https://www.atf.gov/firearms/firearms-guides-importation-verification-firearms-national-firearms-act-definitions-1 My expectation is that the next argument we are going to see advanced to the SCOTUS is that the closure of the NFA machine gun registry amounts to a defacto ban. Which is very likely to be a successful argument to this court, that reopens the registry and vastly reduces the prices of machine guns. Liquid Communism fucked around with this message at 05:50 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 05:40
|
|
|
Liquid Communism posted:My expectation is that the next argument we are going to see advanced to the SCOTUS is that the closure of the NFA machine gun registry amounts to a defacto ban. That might be the one place you see true bipartisan resistance to relaxing gun laws, as rich people won't want to see their "investment" machine guns lose 90% of their value.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 06:26
|
|
|
Reading this thread regarding the 6-3 decision on Bruen, and how hopeless everything is with a 6-3 court, then taking a look at TFR and seeing people jerk off over this to thoughts of Thomas and Alito saving their hobbies... really crack pings my mental state. I think I'm hitting the point where everything is going to poo poo so fast, and now I have to live every day further worrying about my kids going to school and getting killed just like all the kids before them who have, and just.. I kinda want to just die so I don't have to think about it anymore. This loving sucks. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 07:28
|
|
|
Being utterly unaccountable lifetime positions the Supreme Court can just do whatever they want and make up poo poo to justify it, I think you're all putting way more thought into it than they ever have.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 09:07
|
|
|
Lazy Robot posted:That might be the one place you see true bipartisan resistance to relaxing gun laws, as rich people won't want to see their "investment" machine guns lose 90% of their value. I get the sense that most gun collectors take interest in firearms resale values the way toy collectors do; after initial purchase, the resale is entirely theoretical/hypothetical/a conversation piece until you need to liquidate assets (because you are insolvent or dead), at which point the seller takes whatever is on the table, assuming it's not just straight to the dumpster.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 09:30
|
|
|
Been reading this thread for the last few days and as a European I find it completely bewildering how the USA, the oldest democracy in the world, allows 9 unelected officials to dictate social, fiscal and other serious policy without any checks from the other branches of the government. I live in a country of about a million people and our own version of the supreme court has 13 judges, and they wouldn’t dare decide on any serious political issues, they would rather declare themselves unfit to make a judgement and refer the issue back to the parliament. They also have to retire at age 75. Most other European supreme courts also have a proportional number of judges according to their population and a compulsory retirement age. Either abolish the court, or put more judges in it to make it more difficult for any single political party to “capture” the court. Put 30, hell even 60 judges in the Supreme Court. As I understand it the constitution doesn’t set a limit on the number of judges. Is there any serious discussion going on how to overhaul the supreme court in the USA?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 12:38
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:That would be evidence for your interpretation on an amendment written in 2022, or whenever that dictionary was updated. It wasn't written in this century, let alone this year. So we must use relevant dictionaries if you're going to make that argument. quote:Version 1 is the text, which does not contain the words guns. The constitution makes several references to "people" while not referring to all people living in the US. It includes a specific set of people, Militias, in the same sentence. That makes it reasonable to assume it applies to people in militias. Well we just proved that guns is included under arms, so we're good there. Does the text say "the people" or "militia members"? If you have proof when the constitution mentions "the people" it refers to only militia members, please provide that proof. There's a dozen references to "the people" and as far as I know its never meant just members of a militia, would love to see proof of that claim. quote:I'm referring to the statement you made regarding "guns" in the constitution. Please stay on subject. If you can't back up your assertion, or you lack further evidence that would support your claim, please just say so. And part of understanding the constitution is understanding English. I'd really like to hear your understanding of what I wrote so I can further educate you.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 12:41
|
|
|
DrThief posted:Been reading this thread for the last few days and as a European I find it completely bewildering how the USA, the oldest democracy in the world, allows 9 unelected officials to dictate social, fiscal and other serious policy without any checks from the other branches of the government. We should have at least 13 justices right now to match the appellate circuits. There is no serious discussion about court packing because one side is too  poisoned to do anything about it, and the other already successfully packed the courts in their favor.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 12:46
|
|
|
Papercut posted:I think the point is that claiming a "strict textualist" reading of the amendment is absurd because if so you're against laws restricting weaponry of any sort, although I can't speak for Jaxyon My point is not the same as Jaxyon's, but that was my argument. Strict textualism is so patently absurd that it is useless especially for this amendment. Which then means, clearly, that despite the founders saying and other people screaming "[stuff that we are currently ignoring despite it's clear importance] the right to bear arms shall not be infringed" the right to bear arms may be infringed by the government, regularly. Also as noted, presumably the right to bear some weapons that fall under the definition of "arms" are prohibited. The founders did not clearly state that all guns must be permitted, so restrictions on guns, including bans, may be permitted as long as some arms are available to the public. By strict textualism, of course.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 13:39
|
|
|
The entire crux of the gun lobby argument for universal weaponization is literally based on comma placement, so the idea that the "textualist" court should be freely reinterpreting language based on various unofficial dictionaries is pretty absurd. The reality is that the Constitution is a vaguely-worded and poorly edited document, and judges have been seeing whatever they want in the text for centuries.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 13:48
|
|
|
DrThief posted:Is there any serious discussion going on how to overhaul the supreme court in the USA? The most recent, serious development here was Biden convening a panel to examine the state of the court and make recommendations. The panel was evenly split between the two parties, and it was unable to make any recommendations beyond "yep, the court sure is broken"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 13:49
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:https://publicdomainreview.org/collection/samuel-johnson-s-dictionary-of-the-english-language-1785 Contemporary dictionary, arms includes fire arms; which specifically called them "guns"! If you claim the contemporary dictionary is wrong please provide proof. If you are going to try to use pedantry, you could at least read more carefully.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 13:50
|
|
|
SourKraut posted:Reading this thread regarding the 6-3 decision on Bruen, and how hopeless everything is with a 6-3 court, then taking a look at TFR and seeing people jerk off over this to thoughts of Thomas and Alito saving their hobbies... really crack pings my mental state. That’s how fascism works. It takes a bit to set up but then everything happens fast. It’s why the left have been shouting that Dems need to stack/ignore/disband the courts now because there is no way the fascists are going to let the opportunity go to waste. You’ve also not seen anything yet. After the presidential election in 2024, anyone even slightly left leaning will regret they even thought about bringing children in this world (if climate change hasn’t already done that). OldMold posted:Not to Madison - while true he viewed state militias as a bulwark against federal ambitions, he was clearly proud of most americans being armed: If that is the case, the logical conclusion is that even average citizens should have the right to own everything up to and including nukes. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST) virtualboyCOLOR fucked around with this message at 13:54 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 13:51
|
|
|
DrThief posted:Been reading this thread for the last few days and as a European I find it completely bewildering how the USA, the oldest democracy in the world, allows 9 unelected officials to dictate social, fiscal and other serious policy without any checks from the other branches of the government.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Kaal posted:The entire crux of the gun lobby argument for universal weaponization is literally based on comma placement, so the idea that the "textualist" court should be freely reinterpreting language based on various unofficial dictionaries is pretty absurd. The reality is that the Constitution is a vaguely-worded and poorly edited document, and judges have been seeing whatever they want in the text for centuries. This is the most important thing to keep in mind. The law is not real. It never has been. It’s people arguing about words and what words mean and defining those words in ways that they can support their arguement for what the words mean. None of the well thought out logical arguments you can make will ever change anyones opinion in a system that starts with figuring out how they want to rule on a case and works backwards to create an argument to support it. It’s nakedly partisan and always has been
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 13:55
|
|
|
Scam Likely posted:The wife and I were visiting family in Texas recently. We got our rental car and pulled out onto the freeway. Sure enough, a big pickup truck blindly cut us off and, being a New Yorker, I instinctively went for the horn. Thankfully, my wife was quick enough to shout at me not to touch the drat thing. this could happen anywhere. What, you think people don't ride w guns in non-ccw states? Liberal hyperbole at its worst. Good thing "The Boss" was there to keep you safe though  (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 14:12
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 6, 2024 15:11 |
|
|
ilkhan posted:Yes, but only as a way to nakedly grab power from the party that currently has it. There's no real discussion on a non-partisan way to increase the size of the court. Are you suggesting that partisanship makes it somehow illegitimate? Theres a lot of subtext to your framing here. To put it another way, so what?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 14:26
|
|
