|
Arms is such a vague term and it's obvious we have limits, or else it'd be legal in the US to own a nuclear bomb as a private citizen. After all, it's "arms!"
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:49
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Javid posted:People seem to think "may issue" depends on very serious and careful consideration of a person's history and character by qualified government officials, when in reality the only function is to let the good ol boys make sure nobody too poor or brown accidentally gets a permit in their nice, peaceful county. That's not how they worked in Hawaii. They were issued for legitimate purposes. If you were employed as an armed guard, no sweat brah here's your ccw. Personal protection? shoots no need for guns man no one has a gun. Now there's gonna be a lot of people with guns in Hawaii. Gun violence is going to loving skyrocket.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:Arms is such a vague term and it's obvious we have limits, or else it'd be legal in the US to own a nuclear bomb as a private citizen. After all, it's "arms!" The munitions of a nuke are controlled substances so you could in theory build a fully complete nuke without any ammo. This lesson teaches us that we should just ban bullets from private ownership.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:51
|
|
|
Charity Porno posted:Arms is such a vague term and it's obvious we have limits, or else it'd be legal in the US to own a nuclear bomb as a private citizen. After all, it's "arms!" Yeah, this is kind of the point. 2A is just a lovely amendment that does not scale to modern times. On strict reading, it protects the public's access to offensive weaponry. At the time the authors did not imagine nukes or anthrax, so we're stuck with lazy text that doesn't even bother differentiating between dagger, musket, or cannon. SCOTUS should just bite the bullet and declare all limits on weapons unconstitutional and force fed/state legislatures to define a practical amendment.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:57
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Could you find me the section that mentions "guns". Where does it say the amendment "only applies to militias"? Jaxyon posted:Here's a 1785 dictionary. The word "arm" or "arms" appears on page 178. The word "arms" is on page 180.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 22:58
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:The word "arms" is on page 180. Even that definition doesn't mention guns
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:01
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:Where does it say the amendment "only applies to militias"? Here: quote: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. The ammendment concerns militias, as stated. If you'd like to make the argument that it doesn't only apply to the one thing mentioned, then please feel free to provide evidence to support that idea. Fuschia tude posted:The word "arms" is on page 180. Indeed, thanks! And more accurately, "arm" appears on 179.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:04
|
|
|
Cimber posted:I think the bigger issue at play here in the NY decision was that NY was being extremely subjective in their issuance of concealed carry permits. It was almost impossible to get one, unless you were really rich, famous or both. Normal citizens would never be issued a CC permit, but elites would. This is mentioned only in Kavanaugh's concurrence. There's no mention in it in the opinion that Thomas wrote, or in Alito's concurrence, and I didn't see any mention of it in Barrett's concurrence either. The overall opinion is laser-focused at using Heller and originalism to weaken gun licensing requirements. I can't speak to exactly how much, because after fifty pages or so of Thomas exhaustively recounting seven centuries of gun regulation in English common law, I was compelled to skim the rest of his opinion. Seriously, even as boring as I am, my brain cells all just went "gently caress this poo poo" when he started talking about what King James I would have thought about gun control.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:07
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Here: You may be aware that the first thirteen words have been determined to be prefatory and carry no legal weight because sure why not.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:10
|
|
|
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. Sure is awesome that New Yorkers will now have to deal with the visceral terror that every road rager could impulsively end their lives. Cool country great job.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:18
|
|
|
HashtagGirlboss posted:You may be aware that the first thirteen words have been determined to be prefatory and carry no legal weight because sure why not. I'm talking about a claim that a poster made, backed by 2 others, that none of them have been able to back up. I'm looking at D&D Rules 1.3 and 1.4
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:19
|
|
|
Popping in to say, as a layman about all this stuff I appreciate the interesting discussion, particularly the people showing examples of logical reasoning-based arguments.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:23
|
|
|
-Blackadder- posted:Popping in to say, as a layman about all this stuff I appreciate the interesting discussion, particularly the people showing examples of logical reasoning-based arguments. Logical reasoning-based arguments are cool for convincing your uncle Bob but don't mean anything to SCOTUS
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:24
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm talking about a claim that a poster made, backed by 2 others, that none of them have been able to back up. That’s fair. But also it’s a great example of this post right here and I always like to bring it up when it comes up Devor posted:Logical reasoning-based arguments are cool for convincing your uncle Bob but don't mean anything to SCOTUS It’s pretty funny, really. Words have meaning and every word in a law should be read to give it some type of effect if possible, so Scalia just declares oh that part about well regulated militias? That’s just prefatory language explaining why having guns is important
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:29
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm talking about a claim that a poster made, backed by 2 others, that none of them have been able to back up. Well we've established guns are included in arms in contemporary dictionaries, so that has been backed up. The rest should be simple; which does the 2nd amendment say. Let me know 1 or 2. 1. "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" OR 2. "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of [militias/militia members] to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" If that's not clear, maybe some additional understanding of your English might help me. If I was dictator and made a constitutional amendment saying "Pineapple on pizza, being an abomination to culinary taste, pineapples are now banned in the USA". Would you argue that hypothetical only bans pineapple on pizza, or all pineapple?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:30
|
|
|
Devor posted:Logical reasoning-based arguments are cool for convincing your uncle Bob but don't mean anything to SCOTUS SCOTUS isn't this thread. But posters making arguments they can't back up are. The USA's complete inability to pass universal healthcare doesn't make it a bad idea or not effective.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:31
|
|
|
Javid posted:People seem to think "may issue" depends on very serious and careful consideration of a person's history and character by qualified government officials, when in reality the only function is to let the good ol boys make sure nobody too poor or brown accidentally gets a permit in their nice, peaceful county. The good character component of the law wasn't in question. The decision is addressed to the proper cause requirement, and stays focused upon it. May-issue states with a character or suitability requirement but no proper cause requirement are specifically distinguished in the first footnote as being close enough to shall-issue that they apparently pass muster (Kavanaugh concurrence notwithstanding), or at least aren't at issue in the opinion. Racism in implementation of firearms restrictions is relevant to a conversation about gun control, but I don't really see that it has a lot to do with this decision. Thomas mentions it, but in a footnote relating to his discussion of gun laws and their implementation during the Reconstruction era. This isn't an equal protection case. eviltastic fucked around with this message at 23:35 on Jun 23, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:33
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Here: No, you didn't say it "concerns militias". You said it "only applies to militias". Again, I'm asking for your evidence that it "only applies to militias"? The word "only" does not appear in the text you quoted. quote:If you'd like to make the argument that it doesn't only apply to the one thing mentioned, then please feel free to provide evidence to support that idea.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:34
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Well we've established guns are included in arms in contemporary dictionaries, so that has been backed up. 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. If you have a relevant dictionary to cite, please do. Otherwise, I've already provided more evidence on this front than you. quote:The rest should be simple; which does the 2nd amendment say. Let me know 1 or 2. 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. If you have evidence of it being broader than that, please post it. quote:If that's not clear, maybe some additional understanding of your English might help me. If I was dictator and made a constitutional amendment saying "Pineapple on pizza, being an abomination to culinary taste, pineapples are now banned in the USA". Would you argue that hypothetical only bans pineapple on pizza, or all pineapple? 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:38
|
|
|
Fuschia tude posted:No, you didn't say it "concerns militias". You said it "only applies to militias". Fair point! I concede it does not say "only" anywhere in there. Please provide evidence it applies to anyone besides the only group of people specifically mentioned in the sentence. quote:By my count, the text mentions seven different things: "Militia", "security", "state", "right", "people", and "Arms". It seems clear to me that it concerns all of those things, not "only" one of them, as you keep insisting. Cool, where does it mention guns?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:39
|
|
|
Trevorrrrrrrrrrrrr posted:Well we've established guns are included in arms in contemporary dictionaries, so that has been backed up. The rest should be simple; which does the 2nd amendment say. Let me know 1 or 2. 'People' and 'militia members' were synonyms, given that people mostly meant white men back then.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:42
|
|
|
A perfectly logical argument can be made that it does/doesn’t apply to guns, just like a perfectly logical arguement can be made that it is/isn’t limited to militias. That’s the problem. The law is just words and arguments over words, not some divine truth that can be understood with rigorous thinking or scientific objectivity. The justices start from the result and work backwards. It really doesn’t matter a whole lot the path they use to get there. It really just matters if what they do is good or bad. This time it was bad, as it usually is.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:'People' and 'militia members' were synonyms, given that people mostly meant white men back then. The constitution, at the time of writing, is an especially absurd document to claim that "people" is an unlimited word in.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:45
|
|
|
Starting to think it may be time for an entirely new Constitution altogether!
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Please provide evidence it applies to anyone besides the only group of people specifically mentioned in the sentence. At this point it feels like you are being intentionally obtuse. The debate on the interpretation of the 2A has been going on for hundreds of years from many angles, with various rulings falling on either side of the extent of the definition of "arms" or whether or not these rights are granted to individuals, states, or militias. One has a smorgasbord of opinions that can be cherry picked to support one point or another. What evidence would you like to see produced that you would consider to be satisfactory that has been missing from judicial arguments and rulings to date?
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:58
|
|
|
Vox Nihili posted:Starting to think it may be time for an entirely new Constitution altogether! Not while the traitor party holds the majority of state governments, nope.
|
|
#
?
Jun 23, 2022 23:59
|
|
|
eviltastic posted:The good character component of the law wasn't in question. The decision is addressed to the proper cause requirement, and stays focused upon it. May-issue states with a character or suitability requirement but no proper cause requirement are specifically distinguished in the first footnote as being close enough to shall-issue that they apparently pass muster (Kavanaugh concurrence notwithstanding), or at least aren't at issue in the opinion. Giving the cops any discretion whatsoever past "this person has no criminal or psych history and is a legal resident of this county" is patently inequitable without a level of direct oversight that is just not present in reality. Taking away any of the fig leaves used to disguise open racism is objectively progress
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
Oracle posted:Not while the traitor party holds the majority of state governments, nope. Ignore states entirely and call a continental congress with canada and mexico.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:00
|
|
|
OldMold posted:At this point it feels like you are being intentionally obtuse. The debate on the interpretation of the 2A has been going on for hundreds of years from many angles, with various rulings falling on either side of the extent of the definition of "arms" or whether or not these rights are granted to individuals, states, or militias. One has a smorgasbord of opinions that can be cherry picked to support one point or another. What evidence would you like to see produced that you would consider to be satisfactory that has been missing from judicial arguments and rulings to date? I'm asking a poster to back up a statement they made about the constitution. So far they have been unable to.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:02
|
|
|
Bel Shazar posted:Ignore states entirely and call a continental congress with canada and mexico. Do we get to wall off Maine and NH and upstate NY in the process because I’m down
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:04
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:I'm asking a poster to back up a statement they made about the constitution. So far they have been unable to. Because nobody cares about your personal disagreements/difficulties with the legal definition of the term "arms". The people you need to convince do not read this thread
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:09
|
|
|
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. I'm confused by your wording in the first paragraph. Do you think we should be basing our definitions on 2022 meanings, or the 18th century ones used in the dictionary you linked? That dictionary describes "arms" as, "weapons of offense" (or cruelty/injury, to pull from the definitions given for that word). It also defines "gun" as, "the general name for fire-arms, the instrument from which shot is discharged by fire." Pretty clearly, what we describe today as guns is included in that meaning.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
Javid posted:Because nobody cares about your personal disagreements/difficulties with the legal definition of the term "arms". The people you need to convince do not read this thread Who am I trying to convince? I am simply asking a poster to give evidence for an assertion they've made. Fell Fire posted:I'm confused by your wording in the first paragraph. Do you think we should be basing our definitions on 2022 meanings, or the 18th century ones used in the dictionary you linked? If were are are attempting to make an argument that words are interchangeable in an 18th century document, we should be using 18th century definitions. quote:That dictionary describes "arms" as, "weapons of offense" (or cruelty/injury, to pull from the definitions given for that word). It also defines "gun" as, "the general name for the fire-arms, the instrument from which shot is discharged by fire." Pretty clearly, what we describe today as guns is included in that meaning. The amendment says "arms", not "large", "small" or "fire". The assertion was that it says "guns"
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:12
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Who am I trying to convince? I am simply asking a poster to give evidence for an assertion they've made. I recommend that you look up the entry for "firearms" in that dictionary. (It's actually really easy! The text has been OCRed, so the search function works.) "Arms which owe their efficacy to fire; guns." These words operate as synonyms.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:21
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:I'm confused by your wording in the first paragraph. it's because he's trolling and not engaging in good faith. Trying to understand it logically is a fool's errand (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:22
|
|
|
Fell Fire posted:I recommend that you look up the entry for "firearms" in that dictionary. (It's actually really easy! The text has been OCRed, so the search function works.) "Arms which owe their efficacy to fire; guns." The 2nd does not use the term "firearms". Javid posted:it's because he's trolling and not engaging in good faith. Trying to understand it logically is a fool's errand If you think I'm acting in bad faith or trolling, report it. If you don't like that I'm holding someone to statements they make, this might be the wrong forum for you. (USER WAS PUT ON PROBATION FOR THIS POST)
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:23
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The 2nd does not use the term "firearms". 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?
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:34
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The amendment says "arms", not "large", "small" or "fire". 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. 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. Example, from Madison's own writings on militias: "Those who are best acquainted with the last successful resistance of this country against the British arms, will be most inclined to deny the possibility of it." He is quite clearly referring to the entire army and arsenal of weapons employed by Britain, not just to their bayonets. 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.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:35
|
|
|
Jaxyon posted:The 2nd does not use the term "firearms". 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. Like, are you seriously trying to argue that “arms” doesn’t include guns in its definition? Sure, it also includes cavalry sabres, but no one sane is arguing it doesn’t include guns.
|
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:36
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 1, 2024 19:27 |
|
|
Jaxyon posted:Fair point! I concede it does not say "only" anywhere in there. Please provide evidence it applies to anyone besides the only group of people specifically mentioned in the sentence. The Constitution uses this phrase "the people" (and, indeed, the word "people") nine different times. The only two in the unamended text: "We the People of the United States", in specifying the authority of the document and whom it governed, and "the People of the several States", in specifying who elects representatives to the House. All the other cases appear in the amendments, including five times in the Bill of Rights, clearly a term of art referring in short to the same set of people in the very first clause of the document. I don't see how you can square your claim that "the people" in Amendment II applies only to militias with those various other uses, including 4 written contemporaneously, unless you think I allows freedom of speech and of religion and of assembly and protest only to "the press", and that IV doesn't protect anyone against unreasonable search or seizure because it doesn't name any other group of people at all, and that IX similarly doesn't recognize that anyone has any rights at all, and that X doesn't devolve any powers to the people but merely to the states, and XVII doesn't allow anyone except the state executive and legislature to elect Senators to Congress. But if you really want that, OK, cool, "the people" is short for "the people [of a free state]" by analogy to the first two uses. It's just a bad amendment. quote:Cool, where does it mention guns? Jaxyon posted:The assertion was that it says "guns" Fuschia tude fucked around with this message at 00:40 on Jun 24, 2022 |
|
#
?
Jun 24, 2022 00:37
|
|