Yes, The 2A IS Different From The Rest

[tucsonlib]

All of our other rights, as spelled out in the Constitution, have certain commonalities - They are timeless, universal and, most of all, inherent. They would have been just as relevant and understandable 5000 years ago as they will be 5000 years in the future. They transcend all social, national, political and economic boundaries.

Only in the 2A do you find a right which is tied to some external, manufactured (man-made), inanimate objects.

This obvious yet rarely acknowledged fact may explain why, rightly or wrongly, the 2A isn't seen as quite so "sacred" or "absolute" as other Constitutional rights in the eyes of some.

Any thoughts?

[Statistical]

1. That is what you fail to understand it protects the concept not the item.

Someday firearms will be obsolete and something new (directed energy weapons, lasers, etc) will replace them. Maybe not for 5000 years but technology will replace firearms.


The concept that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms is that a concept and that is what is protected.

[tucsonlib]

2. True, But Misses The Point

The OP, like the 2A, makes no mention of "firearms". Just "arms". Whether spear, shotgun or laser, they are all still man-made, inanimate objects.

[hansberrym]

4. Is not a printing press also a man-made object ?

Furthermore the use of tools (weapons being a subset) is inherent in human nature, and certainly known 5,000 years ago.

[tucsonlib]

10. Where In The Constitution Do You Find The Words "Printing Press"?

[hansberrym]

15. Why do you ask? Are you suggesting that the first amendment does not refer

to printing presses?

[tucsonlib]

17. Are You Suggesting That It Does?

I seems to me a great deal more likely that the the Founding Fathers defined "the press" as:

"people or person working in communications"


(from Webster's)

[hansberrym]

24. Yes. What sort of communications would that be? printed materials?

http://1stam.umn.edu/main/historic/Bill%20of%20Rights%20Draft.htm


Madison's draft does not limit the right to a subset of the people
(those working in communications)


What evidence do you have?

[iverglas]

51. "Madison's draft does not limit the right to a subset of the people"

One suspects that Madison, like everybody else at the time, knew exactly what "the press" meant, and means.

One is pretty sure that you do, too. Well, perhaps one should be careful, when it comes to what you know about what words mean in English.

Madison's draft does not limit the right to a subset of the people
(those working in communications)

What right? The freedom of the press? The PRESS'S FREEDOM? (You're familiar with the possessive "of", are you?)

(edit: here -- link:www.google.ca/search?hl=en&q="The+PRESS'S+FREEDOM" -- you'll have to copy it)

If you decide to exercise the freedom of the press, might you be in the press, and working in communications?

[hansberrym]

63. Speech's freedom? Who is speech?

The distinction you attempt to draw, that "press" refers to the freedom of those people who use a press rather than the freedom to use a printing press(meaning the freedom to publish ones opinions, etc.), is not tenable.

Without the freedom to use the means (the printing press) to publish, the freedom of any person or group to publish is pointless. To insist that the right does not encompass the right to use a printing press is nonsense.

What freedom do you suppose was guaranteed to those who engage in publication?
Was it the freedom to worship?
Was it the right to a fair trail?
What could it have been?

As you have conceded, the right is not limited to certain people, but is open to anyone who engages in publication. Or put another way the

http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/pa_manual/section2/article_i.pdf
The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the
proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be
made to restrain the right thereof. The free communication of thoughts and opinions is one of the invaluable rights of man, and every citizen may freely speak, write and print on any subject, being responsible for the abuse of that liberty. No conviction shall be had in any prosecution for the publication of papers relating to the official conduct of officers or men in public capacity, or to any other matter proper for public investigation or information, where the fact that such publication was not maliciously or negligently
made shall be established to the satisfaction of the jury; and in all indictments for libels the jury shall have the right to determine the law and the facts, under the direction of the court, as in other cases.

[iverglas]

70. blah blah

As you have conceded, the right is not limited to certain people, but is open to anyone who engages in publication.

Since I NEVER SAID, SUGGESTED, IMPLIED OR WROTE ON A MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE that the right was limited to certain people, I obviously "conceded" nothing.

"The press" MEANS people (or corporatins) who "engage in publication", for the love of fuck. Are you actually claiming that I said something different? QUOTE ME.

Upon returning today and reading my first message of the day, I see an opportunity to offer yesterday's intalment of my favourite funny. Not that there won't be more.


(editing to fix image link)


The distinction you attempt to draw, that "press" refers to the freedom of those people who use a press rather than the freedom to use a printing press(meaning the freedom to publish ones opinions, etc.), is not tenable.

If only I had said any such fucking thing. Are you completely unable to read simple English?

I NEVER SAID, SUGGESTED, IMPLIED OR WROTE ON A MESSAGE IN A BOTTLE that "that 'press' refers to the freedom of those people who use a press".

What the fuck would that even MEAN? The freedom of people who press garlic for a living? What in the bleeding hell is "a press", and where do you pretend to have seen anything in my post referring to "people who use a press"?? Can you not copy and paste?


What freedom do you suppose was guaranteed to those who engage in publication?

I can only imagine how difficult this is for you ... well, actually I can't ... but you could try considering this: it is the freedom to engage in publication.

My dog. Imagine that.

Now what was this
http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/pa_manual/section2/article_i.pdf
meant to tell me?

That people in the olden days says ridiculous things like "the abuse of that liberty"?

Hmm. "The printing press shall be free to every person who may undertake to examine the proceedings of the Legislature or any branch of government, and no law shall ever be made to restrain the right thereof." So ... what? Your first amendment doesn't apply to the internet?

If your founders and framers had intended to refer to "the printing press" in that amendment, don't you think they would have said so?

I just love a little equivocation with my diet cola.

You know what "the press", in that amendment, means as well as I do, and as the entire world does.

But hey, maybe you could find some actual precedent in which it is interpreted to mean "printing press". I'll be happy to take a look when you do.

[hansberrym]

80. ...Blah. So who is speech?

You did not respond to my first question -who is speech? And why were the framers so concerned with his/her freedom?


Allow me to correct my earlier statement:
The distinction you attempt to draw, that "freedom of the press" refers to the freedom of those people who use a printing press rather than the freedom to use a printing press(meaning the freedom to publish ones opinions, etc.), is not tenable.


Summarizing your position:
The freedom of the press according to you means the freedom of persons engaged in publishing to engage in publishing. And this freedom applies to anyone who chooses to engage in publishing.

How is that different from simply the freedom of anyone to publish, to use a printing press, or put another way.... ?
http://www.dgs.state.pa.us/dgs/lib/dgs/pa_manual/sectio...




If your founders and framers had intended to refer to "the printing press" in that amendment, don't you think they would have said so?

Can you imagine that they thought it obvious that they were referring to a printing press rather than a garlic press ?

[iverglas]

84. as I said, I'm sorry about your problems with English

So who is speech?

I give up. How big is orange?


Allow me to correct my earlier statement:
The distinction you attempt to draw, that "freedom of the press" refers to the freedom of those people who use a printing press rather than the freedom to use a printing press(meaning the freedom to publish ones opinions, etc.), is not tenable.

Allow me to refer you to a dictionary, again.

I think you'll find that "correct" does not mean "invent a new misrepresentation".

How is that different from simply the freedom of anyone to publish, to use a printing press, or put another way.... ?

I give up.

How is it similar to the right to possess a gun?


Can you imagine that they thought it obvious that they were referring to a printing press rather than a garlic press ?

If they had been referring to any object used to press anything, your question would be meaningful and not a loaded question squashed by the weight of its own false premise.

I'm very sure that they were referring to, and intended to refer to, and knew they were referring to, the collective entity known by the collective noun "the press".

Have you come up with any precedent to the contrary for my consideration?


P.S. In English, there is no space between a sentence and its terminal punctuation, including a question mark.

[rd_kent]

142. Ahh, iver, you did it again

Dodge the subject and pile on the insults and sarcasm. Nice.

[iverglas]

73. don't you mean "the speech"??

I mean, you're asserting a parallel, so there must be one. So your first amendment must say "freedom of the press" and "freedom of the speech", not "the freedom of speech". Have I been reading it wrong all these years???


I really do recommend further study of the English language if you want to hold up your end here. It's not your fault if it isn't your first language, but it isn't my problem, either.

[hansberrym]

82. Why so? Your assertion that "of" is possessive is what I am questioning.

But then you knew that.

[iverglas]

85. "Your assertion that 'of' is possessive is what I am questioning."

Ah, if only I had made that assertion.

If only I hadn't made that assertion in A CONTEXT, in relation to A PARTICULAR "OF".

La plume de ma tante, eh?

And yet, la qualification de la plume comme "la plume de ma tante".

My aunt's pen, the characterization of the pen as "my aunt's pen".

It may be my aunt's pen, but it ain't the pen's characterization.


I'd like to say you knew that, i.e. that you were starting with an understanding of the grammar involved, but I'm afraid I might be wrong.

The press's freedom.
And yet not trial by jury's right (the right of trial by jury).

Eh?

[hansberrym]

100. Make up your mind.

The press's freedom.


Does the freedom belong to all of us, or only a certain group?

You have been quite inconsistent.

[sharesunited]

The point should probably be conceded. Freedom to publish or broadcast is mechanical.

[tucsonlib]

22. Explain That To The Town Criers.

I must have been dozing off while the history prof covered our Constitutional Freedom To Broadcast.
(Was that part of the Right To Receive Cable and/or Satellite Amendment?)

[sharesunited]

26. Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom... of the press.

They included it as something separate and apart from speaking.

Back in the day it referred to printing. Today it would include recordings, movies, broadcasting-- all mechanical means of disseminating protected speech.

So as a debating point to your original post, a book is another example of inanimate object which the framers had in mind.

[tucsonlib]

35. Okay. Point Taken

But as you point out, the 1A is really about freedom of expression, and addresses speech, religion, etc. as well as "the press".
The 2a is still the only amendment which contends that possessing some "thing" is, in and of itself, a "right".

[X_Digger]

38. And the fourth is the only one that mentions search..

.. and the third is the only one that mentions quartering of troops, and...

(I guess the point is that you have to squint really hard to make the second unique in one method without also squinting at the others and finding other 'uniqueness'.)

[gorfle]

146. Not really.

But as you point out, the 1A is really about freedom of expression, and addresses speech, religion, etc. as well as "the press".
The 2a is still the only amendment which contends that possessing some "thing" is, in and of itself, a "right".

Just as the first amendment is really about protecting the expression of political dissent, by any means, either by voice, printing press, or telephone, likewise the 2nd amendment is about protecting liberty by force, by using arms.

You are misinterpreting the focal point of these rights. It's not about the means used to exercise them, rather it is what is being exercised.

[iverglas]

52. it's also commercial,

retail, wholesale ...

The FREEDOM in question is the freedom to DISSEMINATE (publish) information, opinion, etc.

That is what "the press" does, and it is the freedom OF THE PRESS to do that, that is protected.

[rrneck]

32. Pretty close.

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

[Xithras]

190. Where in the Constitution do you find the word "firearms"?

The word "arms" throughout history, has merely meant "weapons". Tanks, bazookas, nunchucks, swords, bombs, and guns are all various types of arms and armaments. We tend to associate "arms" with "guns" today simply because guns are the most common type of arms found in modern society, but I doubt very much that the intent of the framers was to specifically permit guns.

In modern parlance, the Second Amendment would simply be written, "The right and necessity of the citizenry to possess weapons capable of defending themselves and their nation must not be infringed."

[iverglas]

49. and does your constitution guarantee some right

to keep and operate printing presses?

I'm not seeing it, myself.

I'm seeing "freedom of the press". "The press" is not an object, it is a collective noun referring to a group of individuals / groups of individuals / corporate entities even.

Your constitution guarantees their freedom, qua "the press", obviously to do what the press does, which is to disseminate news and views.

Today, we would say "the media". You know, how a "press release" is now a "media release" - a release of information to the press.

Pretty sad attempt at an analogy.

Congress shall make no law... abridging the freedom ... of the press ... .

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.

Damn, it's like holding it up to a mirror, isn't it??


http://onlinedictionary.datasegment.com/word/press

The art or business of printing and publishing; hence, printed publications, taken collectively, more especially newspapers or the persons employed in writing for them; as, a free press is a blessing, a licentious press is a curse.
<1913 Webster>

I know how you folks loves your Webster.

[hansberrym]

66. yes.

Posted by iverglas:
and does your constitution guarantee some right
to keep and operate printing presses?

I'm not seeing it, myself.

I'm seeing "freedom of the press". "The press" is not an object, it is a collective noun referring to a group of individuals / groups of individuals / corporate entities even.

Your constitution guarantees their freedom, qua "the press", obviously to do what the press does, which is to disseminate news and views.


Perhaps you need to take a step back and stop squinting, or maybe just take a broader view of rights of the people.

You say that the freedom of the press is the freedom of at least some to publish. Could the gov make it illegal to use the means of desseminating news but still claim to be upholding the freedom of the press?

Does the mere act of publishing something, make one a part of your group of individuals who comprise "the press"?

If so, then does not the freedom of the press mean pretty much the same as right of the people to publish?

Can government decide who is entitled to publish?

Does the First Amendment protect my right to publish?

[iverglas]

72. such fine tangents

You say that the freedom of the press is the freedom of at least some to publish. Could the gov make it illegal to use the means of desseminating news but still claim to be upholding the freedom of the press?

And this is relevant to THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD ... how?

The topic of this thread is an amendment that DOES GUARANTEE some right to own and do stuff with a thing.

It says just that, right there in itself.

What possible analogy between the first and second amendments could you be asserting here?


If so, then does not the freedom of the press mean pretty much the same as right of the people to publish?

You seem to think that paraphrasing myself back at me and demanding that I agree with what I said will prove some point for you. Odd, that.


Can government decide who is entitled to publish?

Does the First Amendment protect my right to publish?

Why are you asking me these stupid questions?

[hansberrym]

83. Is the right to use the means to publish merely tangential to the freedom of the press?

And this is relevant to THE TOPIC OF THIS THREAD ... how?

The topic of this thread is an amendment that DOES GUARANTEE some right to own and do stuff with a thing.

It says just that, right there in itself.

What possible analogy between the first and second amendments could you be asserting here?

The First Amendment does guarantee the right to use publishing equipment -specifically the printing press (a thing), that the First Amendemnt "freedom of the press" is shorthand for the right guaranteed in the PA and other state constitutions.


Why are you asking me these stupid questions?

Why aren't you answering? Because to do so would be to admit the silliness of your position.

Answers to my closing 3 questions: Yes, No, Yes

[iverglas]

86. okay, this will be enough

The First Amendment does guarantee the right to use publishing equipment -specifically the printing press (a thing), that the First Amendemnt "freedom of the press" is shorthand for the right guaranteed in the PA and other state constitutions.

The first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. The freedom to do what the press does. What the press does is DISSEMINATE speech. That's what the press does, and that's what the amendment guarantees. The freedom to disseminate speech.

Have you found a precedent for me that says otherwise, YET?


Maybe this will help ...


http://sensico.wordpress.com/2008/10/05/what-freedom-of-the-press-means-by-sarah-palin/

As we send our young men and women overseas in a war zone to fight for democracy and freedoms, including freedom of the press, we’ve really got to have a mutually beneficial relationship here with those fighting the freedom of the press, and then the press, though not taking advantage and exploiting a situation, perhaps they would want to capture and abuse the privilege. We just want truth, we want fairness, we want balance.

:rofl:

I know how y'all loves yer foreign law, so here's one for you:

http://www.servat.unibe.ch/icl/sw03000_.html

Sweden - The Freedom of the Press Act

Article 1

(1) The freedom of the press means the right of every Swedish subject, without prior hindrance by a central administrative authority or other public body, to publish any written matter, and not to be prosecuted thereafter on grounds of the content of such matter other than before a court of law, or to be punished therefor in any case other than a case in which the content is in contravention of an express provision of law, enacted to preserve public order without suppressing information to the public.

(2) In accordance with the principles set forth in Paragraph (1) concerning freedom of the press for all, and in order to ensure the free interchange of opinion and enlightenment of the public, every Swedish subject shall be entitled, subject to the provisions set forth in the present Act for the protection of individual rights and public security, to publish his thoughts and opinions in print, to publish official documents and to make statements and communicate information on any subject whatsoever.

(3) All persons shall likewise be entitled, unless otherwise provided in the present Act, to make statements and communicate information on any subject whatsoever, for the purpose of publication in print, to the author or to any person who shall be considered the originator of material in such a publication, to the responsible publisher or editorial office, if any, of any publication, or to an enterprise which professionally purveys news or other information to periodical publications.

(4) All persons shall furthermore be entitled, unless otherwise provided in this Act, to procure information and intelligence on any subject whatsoever for the purpose of its publication in print, or for the purpose of making statements or communicating information in the manner referred to in Paragraph (3)

You like your Blackstone too, right?

http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/06.html#10

Insofar as there is likely to have been a consensus, it was no doubt the common law view as expressed by Blackstone. "The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press ...

... Thus, in 1907, Justice Holmes could observe that even if the Fourteenth Amendment embodied prohibitions similar to the First Amendment, "still we should be far from the conclusion that the plaintiff in error would have us reach. In the first place, the main purpose of such constitutional provisions is 'to prevent all such previous restraints upon publications as had been practiced by other governments,' ..." ...

(I omit the antiquated silliness about "abusing" freedoms.)

How about:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendment01/08.html#1

Utilization of the single word "expression" to reach speech, press, petition, association, and the like, raises the central question of whether the free speech clause and the free press clause are coextensive; does one perhaps reach where the other does not? It has been much debated, for example, whether the "institutional press" may assert or be entitled to greater freedom from governmental regulations or restrictions than are non-press individuals, groups, or associations. Justice Stewart has argued: "That the First Amendment speaks separately of freedom of speech and freedom of the press is no constitutional accident, but an acknowledgment of the critical role played by the press in American society. The Constitution requires sensitivity to that role, and to the special needs of the press in performing it effectively." But as Chief Justice Burger wrote: "The Court has not yet squarely resolved whether the Press Clause confers upon the 'institutional press' any freedom from government restraint not enjoyed by all others."

I just can't find anything about the first amendment having to do with printing presses, and the freedom to own printing presses (let alone the freedom of printing presses), myself.

How you doing?


(formatting fixed)

[hansberrym]

104. Enough what?

The first amendment guarantees the freedom of the press. The freedom to do what the press does. What the press does is DISSEMINATE speech. That's what the press does, and that's what the amendment guarantees. The freedom to disseminate speech.

Whose freedom again?

Are you are saying the Freedom of the Press is the press's freedom, and not belonging to all of us?




Have you found a precedent for me that says otherwise, YET?

Othwerwise what? We agree that the amendment protects the right to publish. I say a right to publish means the same as the right to use a printing press. You get there by a different route.

My interest in this topic relates to the attempts by some to limit the freedom of the press to the institutional press. See your own link at bottom.



Sweden - The Freedom of the Press Act

Plainly the freedom described there is not limited to people working in publishing and sometimes referred to as "the press".





You like your Blackstone too, right?

Another source which plainly does not limit the freedom to a subset of the freemen.
''The liberty of the press is indeed essential to the nature of a free state; but this consists in laying no previous restraints upon publications, and not in freedom from censure for criminal matter when published. Every freeman has an undoubted right to lay what sentiments he pleases before the public; to forbid this, is to destroy the freedom of the press: but if he publishes what is improper, mischievous, or illegal, he must take the consequences of his own temerity. To subject the press to the restrictive power of a licenser, as was formerly done, both before and since the Revolution, is to subject all freedom of sentiment to the prejudices of one man, and make him the arbitrary and infallible judge of all controverted points in learning, religion and government

Is "the press" really "every freeman"?

You might also learn something here about what was meant by "free state". Hint: it means much the same as free government. It is not used in the sense of international relations, rather it is used in the sense of the relationship between the governemnt and the people.




How about:
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme...

When you say the Freedom of the Press is the press's freedom, you seem to agree with the "institutional press" theory.

[iverglas]

107. biiiiiig hint

You actually aren't an authority on anything.

Note that I do not claim to be. But I do cite authorities.


You might also learn something here about what was meant by "free state". Hint: it means much the same as free government. It is not used in the sense of international relations, rather it is used in the sense of the relationship between the governemnt and the people.

Yes, and that second amendment of yours makes a whoooole lot of sense when the expression is read in that sense. (Oh look, how the same word can mean two different things.)


"http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/data/constitution/amendme ... "

You seem to have copied that link from somewhere without copying the actual link. I have no idea where it's supposed to go.


I've played the "free state" game of yours more than once in the past, and have no desire to go around the bush again.

[hansberrym]

112. It is your link, I copied it from your post which should have been obvious

had you made any effort. I identified it as such in my prior post.


Another hint: You might try reading what you cite, I am not an authority, but I find it a good practice and recommend it highly.

[iverglas]

28. gurgle gurgle

The concept that citizens have a right to keep and bear arms is that a concept and that is what is protected.

Yee-eesh.

Constitutional declarations of rights do not protect "concepts". They protect rights.

The right this one protects is the right to "keep and bear arms". That isn't a concept. It's an action. It's the right to possess, and do stuff with, very particular things. Your constitution protects the "right" to engage in those actions.

If the intent was to protect some right to use violence to defend one's self, or family, or property, or whatever, why isn't that in your constitution? Why doesn't it just say so? Why all the chatter about things and what can be done with them?

Why is Sotomayor the only one being asked the question? Why isn't someone asking those founders and framers themselves?? Hell, they could have tossed it in as yet another incomprehensible preamble clause right there in that second amendment ...

[AtheistCrusader]

134. Most of the states do.

Washington:

Section 24 - Right to Bear Arms
The right of the individual citizen to bear arms in defense of himself, or the state, shall not be impaired, but nothing in this Section shall be construed as authorizing individuals or corporations to organize, maintain or employ an armed body of men.


That last bit was to eliminate things like http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pinkerton_National_Detective_Agency which caused problems from time to time.

[sharesunited]

3. More importantly, it is erroneosly cited as an individual right instead of a collective one.

A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State...

This contemplates a disciplined corps doing battle with a foreign invader or, perhaps, forces of the federal government.

The 2A is completely obsolete, and is simply being clung to by gun worshippers who are indifferent to the harm which their beloved objects cause.

Their attitude is, at its most sympathetic to their fellow citizens: Such A Tragedy, Now Carry On Dying.

[X_Digger]

6. Keep wishing & hoping..

.. your collective interpretation will eventually look like the 3/5ths compromise.

[sharesunited]

8. Good analogy. The 2A is as relevant today as the 3/5ths compromise.

[X_Digger]

11. Tell that to the folks who defended themselves today..

If we take one half of the lowest estimate of defensive gun use studies, that's still 150/day.

[sharesunited]

13. How many were defending themselves against attacks emboldened by guns?

Whatever your statistics are, they need to be adjusted for guns being the solution to guns being the problem.

[hansberrym]

19. The 3/5th compromise is no longer relevant because slavery has been abolished,

on the other hand tyranny in government is always a concern, as is foreign attack (your examples, and of course attack on one's own person.


Your analogy does not hold up.

[sharesunited]

30. The American Civil war rendered it moot. The modern armed forces of the USA render it moot.

And as explained elsewhere, self-defense is an answer to a criminal charge of assault or homicide. It is not a Constitutional right.

[hansberrym]

34. James Wilson saw it differently than you, he said the right to bear arms included

armed self defense.

[sharesunited]

43. This James Wilson?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/James_Wilson

What kind of guns was he thinking of?

You can have that kind.

[Statistical]

44. The assault weapon of its day.

[sharesunited]

45. Single shot, front loading, flint lock.

Permission granted.

[PavePusher]

71. Hand or water powered, hand-set type press?

With your messages delivered by foot or horse post?

Permission granted.

Please stop using this dangerous thought-assault electronic technology immediately. Else your hypocracy makes you look very silly.

Oh, and rights are not granted by Constitutions, only enumerated and protected, and they certainly aren't granted by governments. But you knew that, correct?

[TPaine7]

81. Rich fantasy life, eh?

It must be nice imagining your great power.

Enjoy!

:rofl:

[rl6214]

88. Thank GOD we don't need YOUR permission.

[sharesunited]

92. If you want morphine or kiddie porn, it will be permission denied.

But 18th century firearm technology I think we can tolerate without too much damage.

[X_Digger]

93. Just like using a gun to kill or maim is illegal..

.. ie, punishing a misuse of the right (after the fact.)

You come back to me when someone wants to make computers and cameras incapable of taking kiddie porn before the fact, then we'll have a comparable discussion.

[sharesunited]

97. Somebody must die or be maimed first?

That's way too indulgent of the gun fetish, regardless of how widespread this aberration.

In fact, claims that this aberration is somehow the norm offers compelling proof of the need to intervene on the side of eradication for the sake of us all.

[X_Digger]

99. Maybe I didn't make myself clear..

.. you keep comparing the banning of weapons to banning child pornography, why I don't know.

There are no restrictions on the 'tools' of kiddie porn (cameras, computers), there are punishments for those caught.

Similarly, there are punishments for the misuse of a firearm (murder, brandishing, illegal discharge.)

If there were cameras that could not be used to take child porn, or you had to register your camera, then you would have a valid analogy to your proposed restrictions on guns (banning them or registration). Until that point, the analogy fails.

[sharesunited]

101. Compound 4? Hand grenades? Morphine?

Some things are inherently dangerous enough so that a theoretical constituency of law-abiding, responsible users is just not a good enough reason to have the products loose in the population.

We strictly control the products and adopt zero tolerance for their POTENTIAL misuse.

This is the kind of prior restraint which is overdue for guns.

[X_Digger]

108. Subsets of drugs, subsets of 'arms'

In order for this analogy to work, you'd have to ban all drugs. There would be no over-the-counter medication to match your 'no guns & ammo' analogy.

[sharesunited]

102. Yes, you are clear that you think cameras and guns are morally neutral products.

Here is why kiddie porn is apt and relevant in the discussion, putting aside the morally neutral camera and memory chip involved in its creation.

It is unlawful to possess kiddie porn.

Someone who possesses it does not need to have been involved in its creation.

Society has determined that it is intolerable contraband in and of itself because of the potential harm from its mere existence.

Why?

Because it is symptomatic of demand from a consuming audience for it, potentially encouraging its production.

and,

Because it has the potential, if exhibited to children, of grooming them for and conditioning them to their own abuse.

Forget about the camera and the chip. The image is what is prohibited. Potential harm restrained, and zero tolerance adopted, despite some theoretically responsible constituency who pose no direct threat to children.

[X_Digger]

103. You're out on a ledge, stop waving or you'll fall..

There is no analog to the 'image' for guns in your analogy. There are tools, and misuses. There are acceptable uses of the tools, and unacceptable ones. We punish the unacceptable. Simple as that.

[sharesunited]

106. Any art form is a "misuse" if you can muster the political will to declare it harmful.

Guns are subject to the same evaluation by the public conscience.

My advocacy proceeds accordingly.

[X_Digger]

109. Have fun with that..

Do you have a friend named Pancho? Watch out for those windmills.

[AtheistCrusader]

137. Sancho...

Sancho Panza

[X_Digger]

139. Doh! You'd think I'd not fat finger that

I found my penguin edition this weekend while cleaning and downloaded the electronic version to my kindle to add to my summer reading list (I like to find 4-5 classics to re-read every year.)

[AtheistCrusader]

136. The analogue to 'kiddie porn' as a subset of art, should be 'murder' for the right to Keep and Bear

Arms.

Not 'guns'.

[Statistical]

138. Sorry emporer but I don't resprect your claim to legitimacy.

1) Rights are not granted by the Constitution. The Constitution protects rights.
2) Rights are certainly not granted by governments. The Bill of Rights acts not as a list of things the govt can do but rather a restriction on what the government can not do.
3) Even if #1 & $2 were true rights are most certainly not granted by a gun-phobic anonymous forum member with an agenda.

Take some Tums but long term it would be easier if you accept that the 2nd amendment protects (not grants) an individual right unconnected with service in the militia. It likely will never be overturned. There is no precedent of SCOTUS overturning previous decisions to restrict rather than protect rights is virtually non-existent. The vast majority of cases where SCOTUS directly overturned itself (already a minority of cases) involve protecting not restricting rights.

However even if it does happen it likely will be long past your lifetime. Have fun tilting at windmills though.

[backwoodsbob]

169. talk of only allowing the weopens of 18th century

while using your 1st amendment rights on the INTERNET seems kind of silly you know?

If Shrub used your argument he could have shut down this website because the founders didnt know of the internet when they gave us the 1st amendment

[hansberrym]

61. Yes, that one.

http://www.law.cornell.edu/supct/html/07-290.ZO.html
Wilson interpreted the Pennsylvania Constitution’s armsbearing
right, for example, as a recognition of the natural
right of defense “of one’s person or house”—what he called
the law of “self preservation.”



Note that he was writing on justifiable homicide/self defense when he comments on the the right to bear arms.

[AtheistCrusader]

135. 20 shot semi-auto? Sure. I have a couple.

Mine are a little more modern than the girandoni repeating rifle, and use a different form of propellant, but mine are just as lethal as those of his day.

[TPaine7]

79. The abolitionist who won the Civil war didn't think the 2nd Amendment moot.

They spoke specifically of it and intentionally strengthened it by the 14th Amendment, making it apply against the states and empowering Congress to enforce it.

The Supreme Court doesn't think it's moot, nor does the President, the Congress, or the American people.

So on one hand we have

• The American People
  
• The authors of the 14th Amendment--you know, people who actually wrote the Constitution
  
• The Supreme Court
  
• The President
  
• The Congress
  

on the other hand we have

• sharesunited
  

It's a close call, sharesunited, but you lose.

And as explained elsewhere, self-defense is an answer to a criminal charge of assault or homicide. It is not a Constitutional right.

And as explained elsewhere, while self-defense is an answer to a criminal charge, it is a constitutional right, too. It's also a pre-existing right, more fundamental than the Constitution itself. So says the Supreme Court, and it has been consistent on that from the beginning through Heller.

Once again, sharesunited, you lose.

But on the positive side, you sound very authoritative and sure of yourself.

[sharesunited]

94. Firmness in the right, as common sense gives us to see the right.

It doesn't take any great powers of perception on my part to note the obvious.

People dying and disabled at the whim of another holding convenient killing power in his hand cannot stand.

The only question is how much carnage must be suffered before the tide is turned.

[gorfle]

147. Really?

The American Civil war rendered it moot. The modern armed forces of the USA render it moot.

There have been numerous examples in modern history of technologically inferior forces winning out over technologically superior ones. Vietnam vs. USA. Afghanistan vs. USSR. Mogadishu vs. USA. Iraq vs. USA. And, hopefully soon, Afghanistan vs. USA.

The idea that the modern armed forces of the USA are unbeatable is a myth. Especially when you consider that a civil war would decimate the economy that supports the military industrial complex.

The American Civil War, while an example of a failed rebellion, does not mean that all rebellions are doomed to fail.

First of all, in most of the examples I cited above, and also including the American Revolution, success was in no small part insured by outside intervention. One of the things that crippled the South during its war was that it could not broker any overt support from other countries, such as England, because they still supported the institution of slavery. If they had abandoned slavery first, and then declared war, as some wished, things might have gone much differently. Imagine, for example, if the British Navy, nearing the height of its empire, had sided with the South? Instead of the Confederacy being at the mercy of the Union, with nearly all of their ports blockaded, it might well have been the other way around, with the Union ports being blockaded.

Given the massive influx of immigrants from Mexico into the United States over the last many years, and given the massive drug trade that flows through our country from Central America, it would not surprise me in the least to see Central American and/or Mexican involvement in a modern civil war, if for no other reason than to take advantage of the ensuing chaos for their own ends.

And as explained elsewhere, self-defense is an answer to a criminal charge of assault or homicide. It is not a Constitutional right.

Most people here disagree with you on this point.

[X_Digger]

20. Most violent crime does not utilize a gun.

I know, you've been duped by the media, so I'll let you digest this-

http://www.ojp.usdoj.gov/bjs/pub/pdf/guic.pdf

"According to the National Crime Victimization Survey (NCVS), almost 43.6 million criminal victimizations occurred in 1993, including 4.4 million violent crimes of rape and sexual assault, robbery, and aggravated assault. Of the victims of these violent crimes, 1.3 million (29%) stated that they faced an offender with a firearm.

In 1993, the FBI's Crime in the United States estimated that almost 2 million violent crimes of murder, rape, robbery, and aggravated assault were reported to the police by citizens. About 582,000 of these reported murders, robberies, and aggravated assaults were committed with firearms."

[sharesunited]

29. Self defense is an affirmative defense to a criminal charge of assault or homicide.

It is not a Constitutional right, and whether it is successful to exculpate someone claiming it depends entirely on the circumstances of each case.

[Statistical]

33. That depends on state law.

Not all states consider SD an affirmative defense. In many states (castle doctrine) if the shooting is a covered condition the prosecutor must prove it isn't self defense.


Of course nobody is claiming the Constitution protects the right to discharge a firearm in any and all situations, rather that the citizens have the power and as such are held responsible for the consequences of their actions.

[X_Digger]

36. The right is bearing arms.

The expression of that right for 150 people/day is self-defense with the most effective tool to do so (a firearm). Definitely not obsolete.

As the SCOTUS said in United States v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553 (1876), "{t}his is not a right granted by the Constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence."

Nice dodge, though- I see you dropped the 'embolden' garbage.

[sharesunited]

41. Sure, I drop it to the extent it is not applicable, and you gave stats which clarify that.

Not all crimes required guns.

Nevertheless, I sure don't think Cruikshank is mutually exclusive of the goal of eradicating the presence of guns and ammo in the population.

[X_Digger]

42. Even if you repealed the second..

..you'd have other hurdles to jump. Many (most?) state constitutions have an analog of the second amendment, many of which include self-defense explicitly. And because of the ninth amendment, it would still be a right of the people, just not protected by the constitution.

eta: hit post accidentally.

[rrneck]

37. The right

of any organism to defend itself from injury or death is about as fundamental a right as you can get. It happens that humans are tool using mammals with opposable thumbs. We use tools to defend ourselves. Couple that with the growing disparity of force between defenders who may be significantly smaller, weaker, and less aggressive than an attacker, and a firearm becomes necessary to defend one's life.

That firearm may or may not be used, thus there may not be any need for an affirmative defense. Much of the utility of a weapon is the

possibility that it is present and that it will be used.

[tucsonlib]

14. Tell Them What?

How is this in any way relevant to the O/P?

[sharesunited]

18. Digger was just responding to my claim that the 2A is obsolete.

Because somebody used a gun for self defense today.

[tucsonlib]

23. Oh. Sorry. n/t

[iverglas]

76. "If we take one half of the lowest estimate of defensive gun use studies"

How do you do division on bullshit??

I never took grade 13 math since I skipped grade 13 (about 35 years before they abolished it here in Ontario) and went straight to uni. I did pick up more math courses here and there, but I seem to have missed that bit.

I might think, though, that one half of bullshit was still bullshit. Or maybe baby cow shit.

[X_Digger]

78. *snort* Wondered how long you'd take..

.. to spew here.

Does the limit of (two times sophistry + (the mean of bluster / hair splitting) modulo snark times the square root of dumbassery) as y approaches inanity = Iverglas? I think so.

[tucsonlib]

7. Well, That Is One View........

Excuse me while I take cover under the nearest desk. Good luck.....


:hide:

[sharesunited]

9. I know, right? Because these posters do have guns!

[biermeister]

59. bullshit

[tucsonlib]

98. Well Played!

:dunce:

[rl6214]

87. It's already decided law

It is an individual right and you DO NOT have to belong to an "organized militia". Every ably bodied American of the right age belongs to the "militia".

[Raskolnik]

145. "The 2A is completely obsolete"

Then I invite you to amend it through the appropriate process, as outlined in the Constitution.

[X_Digger]

5. "the press"?

At the time, 'the press' referred to actual printing presses as much as the institution.

[tucsonlib]

12. A Bit Of A Stretch, No?

I think it's safe to assume that if they had meant to say "printing press" they would have.

[X_Digger]

16. You mean like how if they..

..meant to say firearms, they would have said firearms? 'Arms' is about as general a category as 'the press'.

[Statistical]

21. So if the govt banned methods of mass duplication of printed material while...

still allowing a "press" albeit one without broadcast, recording, or printing capabilities you would have no problem with that?

A press that consisted of little more than a guild of "town cryers" on each street corner would be acceptable.

Or more likely would you consider the govt attempt to ban mechanical duplication machines an attack on the press.

[tucsonlib]

27. Please - Reread The OP

I wasn't trying to argue some point, or offer some opinion. Is it necessary for you to take everything so personal? Why are you asking me these loaded questions? And when did you stop beating your wife?

[iverglas]

77. if only

this were a discussion forum in which the common language was English ...

[rl6214]

89. And who forced you to post here?

[iverglas]

105. and who was talking to you?

And what the fuck are you jabbering about, and why do you choose to behave like an ignorant asshole?

Not questions I can answer, I'm afraid.

[rl6214]

111. I can answer them.

But it's just like you to attack a person that asks you a question or posts a simple comment based upon what you have posted.

First of all, this is a public forum, not your private soapbox. Secondly, I know you are canadian but if you can't understand simple English, maybe you should find a better hobby than posting on the Democratic Underground and of course you would have to call me an "ignorant asshole", being the queen bitch of this website that you are. You cannot and have never given an answer or had a post that was not a snide, sarcastic remark directed at anyone with a different opinion than yours.

[tucsonlib]

113. bitter much?

:grr:

:boring:

[rl6214]

114. No, not at all

I just don't like being attacked when I ask a simple question or make a simple observation.

[iverglas]

118. ah, if only

But it's just like you to attack a person that asks you a question or posts a simple comment based upon what you have posted.

If only

"And who forced you to post here?"

were either one of those things.

Stupid noise, that's what it is. Did I say something that you interpreted as inviting stupid noise?

If you can point it out to me, I'll hasten to retract it.



Oh, and if only

of course you would have to call me an "ignorant asshole"

I had done that. You certainly seem determined to BEHAVE LIKE ONE, I must say though.


being the queen bitch of this website that you are

Oooooh! Where is my crown? And my sceptre. I want a sceptre.


You cannot and have never given an answer or had a post that was not a snide, sarcastic remark directed at anyone with a different opinion than yours.

And you appear to have a disability that prevents you from telling the truth.


Oh, by the way.

Bitter much?

:rofl:

[rl6214]

123. Bitter much?

Is this the popular buzz phrase now-a-days?

You need to get your own material.

"You cannot and have never given an answer or had a post that was not a snide, sarcastic remark directed at anyone with a different opinion than yours.

And you appear to have a disability that prevents you from telling the truth."

This is not only my opinion but that of many others here as well. I am not going to do your research for you but I have seen this same thing posted here by others as well so it's got nothing to do with me telling the truth, it's fact.

[tucsonlib]

126. Question: What Do You Call.......

... a bunch of opinions rendered by a hand-full of like-minded, biased, bitter (:P ), anonymous gun-toters?


Answer: FACT :rofl:


And now, for you, a little lesson in humility:

Read this -

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=243843&mesg_id=243843


I think you owe iverglas an apology, don't you? hmmmmm?

[rl6214]

128. Didn't see ANYTHING there

that would warrant an apology.

[tucsonlib]

129. doesn't surprise me......

[iverglas]

131. okay, I'm going to give our friend a big honking hint

The thread you linked to was about ... the safe/secure storage of firearms.

I wonder what would happen if one were to ask the Google gods for something like, oh,

iverglas "safe/secure storage"

Hmmmmmm.

[rl6214]

132. You really do love the sound of your own voice

or the sight of your own words in print.

[tucsonlib]

133. Not Much Of An Apology, Daryl.......

[iverglas]

159. see no sense, hear no sense ... what's the other one?

Plausible deniability.

If they don't let on they've seen that and all the rest, they can keep on saying that nasty old moi nver says anything!

Only problem they have is how completely implausible that noise is.

[rl6214]

116. Pot meet kettle

From another thread in this very forum. Your response to another poster, and I am an ignorant asshole?

iverglas (1000+ posts) Fri Jul-31-09 12:57 PM
Response to Reply #51
52. feel free not to read

what I have posted in this very subthread in front of your very nose.

[iverglas]

119. I dunno

and I am an ignorant asshole?

Are you?

Maybe you play one on television ...

:rofl:

:rofl:

Keep 'em coming!

[tucsonlib]

121. Give The Guy A Break

Anyone capable of employing advanced literary devices solely for their entertainment value (as demonstrated in comment #91) should be afforded a little slack.....

[rl6214]

125. You think you are being cute

"Who the ilk do ya think yer talkin' to? All of us here ilk proudly admit that there ain't nuthin' we like better than to go out a'plottin' and a'plannin' and a'fringin'-in.

Only thing gets us riled is when ya call us "bitter". Hell, we love what we do!. Always a'grinnin' an' a'gigglin'........

Like when we spiked yer jug o' moonshine with them special mushrooms this mornin'. YeeeeHaw!!

So don't you worry li'l partner. We know this isn't your usual quality drivel. We know it's only shrooms could cause someone to produce nonsense this lame. And always remember - We're a'laughin' at you. Not with you......."

You think you are being sarcastic, you think you are being smart or insulting or whatever you think you are being but in reality it make you look small and petty.

[tucsonlib]

127. Last Time I Offer YOU A Compliment!

But thanks for reprinting the entire, unabridged text.........

[iverglas]

130. what -

- you mean that was a rhetorical question I was responding to?

Damn. I'll be more appreciative in future!

[iverglas]

25. yeah, I've had lots

And so much sense they have made.

The desire was to protect "the security of a free state".

Other states, possibly belligerent, had firearms. A state could hardly hope to defend itself against another, belligerent state without 'em.

Individual effort is required in order for a collective entity to exercise its rights - defend its autonomy (freedom) against invasion/occupation, in this instance; remain a "free state".

Therefore, in the absence of (and evident hostility toward) an organized military (a bizarre thing, since obviously invading states would have 'em), individuals needed to have firearms handy.

Kinda like how, in order for a democratic state to exercise its collective right to self-determination, individuals have to have ballots.

My constitution even guarantees 'em!

Democratic rights of citizens

3. Every citizen of Canada has the right to vote in an election of members of the House of Commons or of a legislative assembly and to be qualified for membership therein.

(Well, I suppose we could do it by show of hands ...)


But nobody sensible and sincere would call either of those things "fundamental rights". They are civil rights. They belong to individuals who belong to particular societies, in the form of particular political entities. And they are methods by which the collective entity exercises its collective rights.

Because really. A world that has long recognized rights like life and liberty and security of the person (yes, we now recognize security of the person as a fundamental human right, out here in the outer darkness) wouldn't just somehow, for all this time, have overlooked that right to have guns as the crucial component of the set of human rights that some would like to pretend it is.

We'd have figured it out by now, really, especially with that beacon of liberty lighting the path for us these last 200-whatever years. We may be dull and plodding, the other several billion of us, but you'd think at least some of us would have figured it out by now, eh?

[virginia mountainman]

31. Keep it up....

Splitting hairs, to explain WHY, a civil right, is NOT a civil right....

You just may one day, when the Rethugs are in power, find them using YOUR SAME ARGUMENTS against an Amendment you do care about.. But hey, if it is good enough for the 2nd, it is good enough for all.

Support the whole document, their is a ways of getting rid of the 2nd Amendment, do it that way.

Take this crap over to Freeperville, where they plot and plan to take away the rest of the document.....That clearly is where all of you belong anyway...

[tucsonlib]

39. Wow! Talk About Projection!

You tell me where, in the OP, I was a: Splitting hairs. b: Arguing about or for anything, or c: Showing non-support for the 2A or for the Constitution as a whole?

That's quite the violent, irrational, hair-trigger temper you've got there, my friend.

[virginia mountainman]

40. The implication that Some rights, are "more relevant" than others...

And your statements about my temperment prove that you know absolutely NOTHING about me.

[tucsonlib]

46. Implication? Only In Minds Of Some.....

And what's with the quotation marks around "more relevant"? Who are you quoting?

Or maybe the word you were looking for is "Interpretation".

Tell us, how did you interpret this? "This obvious yet rarely acknowledged fact may explain why, rightly or wrongly, the 2A isn't seen as quite so "sacred" or "absolute" as other Constitutional rights in the eyes of some."

As anti-gun? As a personal attack?

Ever consider just reading it unfiltered? Ever consider that it may not contain any hidden meanings?

As for "you know absolutely NOTHING about me." Well. here's what I interpret that to mean: "Accuse me again of having a violent temper and I'll fucking BLOW YOU AWAY!"


:scared: :rofl:

[virginia mountainman]

48. LOL speaking of projection......

[iverglas]

50. oh my gosh!

Did the point actually penetrate the hull???

[rl6214]

90. What an idiot.

As for "you know absolutely NOTHING about me." Well. here's what I interpret that to mean: "Accuse me again of having a violent temper and I'll fucking BLOW YOU AWAY!"

[iverglas]

47. Wow! And they call "us" bitter. ;)

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

53. Well it certainly is true about most of you.

[tucsonlib]

54. Needs A Little MINOR Clarification

First, of course, it depends on how you define "bitter".

And, we'd need to know your definition of "certainly", "true", "most" and "you".

For example, would you agree, based solely on the following quote, that its author deserves a place pretty far up there on the bitter scale?

"Take this crap over to Freeperville, where they plot and plan to take away the rest of the document.....That clearly is where all of you belong anyway..."

Good!

But you don't really want to play "Most Of Your Team Is Bitter, And Most Of Our Team Ain't", do you? It would be really ugly. And you'd lose.


:toast:

[virginia mountainman]

55. Yea, Freeperville....

You know, where they plot and plan to infringe on basic civil rights....

Like you and your ilk do....

[tucsonlib]

57. Of COURSE I Know!

Who the ilk do ya think yer talkin' to? All of us here ilk proudly admit that there ain't nuthin' we like better than to go out a'plottin' and a'plannin' and a'fringin'-in.

Only thing gets us riled is when ya call us "bitter". Hell, we love what we do!. Always a'grinnin' an' a'gigglin'........

Like when we spiked yer jug o' moonshine with them special mushrooms this mornin'. YeeeeHaw!!

So don't you worry li'l partner. We know this isn't your usual quality drivel. We know it's only shrooms could cause someone to produce nonsense this lame. And always remember - We're a'laughin' at you. Not with you.......

[virginia mountainman]

64. That kind of bullshit, IS the biggest reason why, I have such a hard time...

Getting support for Democratic Candidates here in Virginia..

Time for you to go back up in your ivory tower...

[iverglas]

74. do those particular special shrooms

really cause people to become humourless twits?? I think I'll stick to my own domestic substances, if so!

Guruess Ma Shroom

[rl6214]

91. Why do YOU PEOPLE always have to sound like morons

when you think you are quoting or sounding like the average person in America instead of the 'elite' that you think you are?

[tucsonlib]

95. We're Impressed!

WE PEOPLE had no idea YOU PEOPLE even knew how to ask a rhetorical question!

"Why do YOU PEOPLE always have to sound like morons when you think you are quoting or sounding like the average person in America....."




:eyes: :shrug:

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

62. That's pretty funny.

[Endangered Specie]

56. INCORRECT other objects mentioned in the bill of rights

- press
- grand jury
- homes
- the States
- $20

[tucsonlib]

58. How Could I Have Missed It?

Why, in the 2A alone you got your militia, your State, your People.......



Lots and lots of objects I overlooked!!

:rofl:

[iverglas]

75. wow!!

You saw a discussion, you thought you'd join in, so you carefully read everything that had been said by the actual participants before you happened by, and offered your deep thoughts for their consideration:


INCORRECT other objects mentioned in the bill of rights

- press

And yet huh, somehow you managed to miss the entire portion of the discussion dealing with that one. You thought you were being original! Nobody had ever thought of that one before, let alone offered clear and cogent argument to put it in the dustbin where it belongs!

- grand jury

Ye dogs and little fishies. Grand juries are "objects" ... and what, your constitution guarantees the right to own them?

- homes

Actually, I was considering asking whether the freedom to be secure in one's papers, or however it goes, guarantees the right to own papers. That would be something to consider, fer shure.

- the States

Good golly, you people have the right to keep and bear states? or maybe to operate them. I'm sure glad you got here. I would have been forever in the dark, otherwise.

- $20

Of course, that's my favourite one, you know. That Fundamental Right:

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved ...

-- there's another one that the international community assembled its various fora has managed to miss altogether.

If we should decide to go along with that RKBA thingy, do we have to adopt this one too?

:rofl:

More merriment to go with my diet cola.



typo fixed

[iverglas]

162. so I was just googling down memory lane ...

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=76306&mesg_id=76377

Endangered Specie
Wed Aug-04-04 08:50 PM
Response to Original message

26. My stance:

Anyone looking to have a gun Needs to take (and pay for) a safety course and training course, and must pass. A psycholigical or polygraph test would also be in order. Also any gun purchase will have a minumum 10 day waiting period.

Certain guns will be banned in all forms for civilian use:
-Semi-auto shotguns (pump action ok, sawed off illegal)
-SMG, Assault rifle and MG, unless permanently put in semi-auto mode, -use of large magazines prohibited (>20 rnds or so)
-Guns which are designed to conceal fingerprints, blood spatter and things of that sort (if they exist).
-Scopes are to be very highly regulated, if not banned altogether
-Any gun firing a .50 caliber bullet or higher.

Any criminal record = No guns, serious offenses get a lifetime ban from owning guns. Commit a crime= all guns confinscated.


http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=76306&mesg_id=76424

Endangered Specie
Thu Aug-05-04 02:18 AM
Response to Reply #34

35. Ok, you want more details (I was trying to keep it consice)

I said scopes should be regulated... Im no expert on this but Id prefer not to see any high level military style scopes on the civilian market.

In reference to .50cal bans, I said that assuming it would imply cartridges (not ball and powder), (my gun termanology is not up to par with most gun folks). As far as slug firing shotguns, not sure on that, I think the ban on semi-auto shotguns should take care of it.

Ok, unto crime... All felony's especially violent ones = ban/confiscation. However, there are some mistameanors that should result in similar action (all the violent, drug, and alcohol related ones for starters). Im no expert on laws but I assume that there is a good order for these things and it could be worked out, If I had the time Id study it.

Im trying to strike a "compromise", in truth I dont much care civilian ownership of guns of any form, but I know that is unreasonable and unconstitutional, so its an attempt to form a happy medium where the rights of people to enjoy recreation and defense are balanced with public safety (its almost like first amendment rights, how far do they go, fire in a public theather, that sort of thing).



***J/PS Official Assault Weapon Ban Demise Thread***
<Justice and something or other; used to be the name of this forum>

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=86348&mesg_id=86426

Endangered Specie
Mon Sep-13-04 12:51 PM
Response to Original message
24. Break out the lube... its time to Mauserbate!

:eyes:

The rolling eyes are in the original, and that one was met with derision from two regulars from the, er, gun aficionado corps ... oops, one's a tombstone now.


So can you date the conversion for us?

I think you sounded smarter before it happened. I mean ...

INCORRECT other objects mentioned in the bill of rights
- press
- grand jury
- homes
- the States
- $20

... reeaaaallly. :eyes:

Maybe it was a head injury?

[Katya Mullethov]

60. There is a certain commonality to having ones skull caved in

Not too long ago , and for the first time , an upright hominid hefted a leg bone and stove in anothers noggin with it . The immediate implications to those bearing witness to this great leap in tool making have transcended the eons and all boundaries .

The relative ease with which the universal utility of even the simplest weapon can be dimsissed is a much more recent and regressive development , at least in the eyes of some .

[JonQ]

65. The first amendment doesn't mention the internet

a manufactured, inanimate object.

Does it then only refer to human speech and no other form of communication?

[virginia mountainman]

67. Now Now..

Don't go spreading sun light (common sense) around the Civil Rights vampires...

It melts them....

[JonQ]

69. Oh also, the third refers to quarting soldiers

in a house, another manmade inanimate object that has changed substantially since then, and will likely continue to do so.

And the kinds of evidence being allowed in court has changed drastically since then. I don't suppose the original bill of rights covered DNA evidence in the 5th or 6th.

Hmm, it's almost like one standard is being applied to the 2nd, and another to the other 9. It's odd because they were all mixed together in the bill of rights, they didn't have one written off to the side in the margins, or with quotes around it, or the :sarcasm: tag or anything. So it seems the distinction exists only in the minds of a few fringe individual.

[tucsonlib]

96. How Many Quarts In A Battalion?

:hi:

[X_Digger]

110. Ahh. the tactic of the lost..

.. if you can't actually respond, attack spelling.

Nice :)

[tucsonlib]

115. Ahh. The Tactic Of The Clueless......

I don't need to respond, Einstein. I wrote the damn OP.

But if you insist:

"A Most Original, Valuable, Provocative, Unbiased Article! Thank You! Kudos!!"

:thumbsup: :applause: :headbang: :yourock: :thumbsup:


(typo fixed)

[X_Digger]

117. Thanks for fixing that typo..

.. the irony would have clobbered small children and pets.

[tucsonlib]

120. Are You Implying.....

...that a misplaced quotation mark deserves the same attention as claiming a Constitutional right to keep and bear soldiers in quart bottles (RKBSQB)?


You flatter me, sir......

[JonQ]

122. Never claimed to be perfect at spelling

frankly as long as the intent is clear I don't see a major issue.

But certainly nit-picking spelling errors beats rational debate.

[tucsonlib]

124. Okay, Let's See Now....

Your intent, as far as I can tell, was to point out that "Soldiers" offers another example of "Objects" that are mentioned in the Bill of Rights. Is this correct?
(I can't believe I'm actually dignifying this nonsense with a response...)

Setting aside the obvious - that portraying soldiers as "objects" stretches the definition just a bit. And even if one were to accept such a premise, soldiers (do I really have to point this out?) are neither manufactured nor inanimate.
We come to the gist of the gibberish: Just how does this even remotely relate to the OP? Are you saying that the 3A is similar to the 2A as it guarantees our "RIGHT TO KEEP AND BEAR SOLDIERS"?

I give up.....



:banghead:

[eqfan592]

140. Um, maybe you your twisted universe that's what he said.

But he actually specifically stated that the "homes" where the soldiers would be staying is what was mentioned as an object, not that "soldiers" are objects.

Of course, in bizarro world where you exist, you read only what you want to read. This post, I honestly think, is probably the largest piece of tripe I've seen you vomit out onto this forum yet. Good work, because I never thought you'd top yourself!

[tucsonlib]

156. PROOF READ! P.R.O.O.F. R.E.A.D.!!

Then skip to Comment #155. Maybe even you your extraordinary ignorance might be capable of learning something....

:dunce: :spank: :rofl:

[eqfan592]

157. Wow, you really hate being smacked down, don't you?

I've noticed the more you get proven wrong, the more insulting you get. You must be Iver's twin brother/sister!

Either way, what I stated was in fact correct. JonQ never stated soldiers were objects. This is an argument manufactured in your own mind, then projected onto somebody else.

As for "proof reading," I generally make use of the built in spell check on FireFox, which tends to get me by, along with a quick read over. But if you feel the need to nit pick on a spelling or grammatical error to try and compensate for your apparent lack of intellectual depth, then by all means, proceed.

And for the record, having an obvious grammatical error in your own post where you state I should "proof read" makes you look like something of a hypocrite. "Maybe even you your?" Heh....

[tucsonlib]

161. For The Record?

I think I'm safe in assuming that only you could fail to appreciate that I was paying homage to your brilliant subject line in comment #140.

See it now? Not yet? Still don't see it? Try squinting.

Heh?





:rofl:

[eqfan592]

163. And maybe you need a new sarcasim detector.

See it now? Not yet? Still don't see it? Try pulling your head out of your ass.

;)

[tucsonlib]

166. Sarcasim? Oh, NOW I Get It!

It's like "The dog ate my homework!", right?

"Those aren't ignorant blunders! Can't you see I was deliberately being ironic in order to ridicule my enemies, real or imagined? I was just using sarcasim (sp? Really? Okay, I'll take your word for it) like them elitists do!"


"Um, maybe you your twisted universe that's what he said."


Of course! Gad, how did I miss such scathing wit and biting sarcasimism? You have indeed chastened me severely, sir!

And now, time for your meds! Atta Boy! Good Boy!

[eqfan592]

168. LOL! Smooth....

I was referring to my comment at the end of post 157, not the obvious mistake made that caused all your hair to fall out in one moment it would seem.

But of course, a person of your obvious intelligence could recognize that right away, right? lol

:smoke:

[tucsonlib]

172. Ohhhhh. You Mean This?:

"And for the record, having an obvious grammatical error in your own post where you state I should "proof read" makes you look like something of a hypocrite. "Maybe even you your?"

You wrote this as sarcasm? Which part? Directed toward what? Or whom? Nobody I showed it to found any hint of sarcastic intent. Unless you consider cluelessness to be a figure of speech.

[eqfan592]

173. Hmmm, maybe sarcasim isn't the right word then.

Maybe "tongue in cheek" is a better way of putting it, making light of the fact that you were going through such an effort to appear clever in pointing out my spelling mistake. It is, admittedly, very subtle.

So, what was that you were saying about "cluelessness?" :P

[iverglas]

165. genealogy??

Yes, please!!

I was conceived in the city where I now live, during a very brief sojourn here by my parents shortly after their marriage. Quite a few years later I moved here, many miles from where I was born and reared and even from where I took my undergrad degree.

Perhaps you were too, Mr. Lib??

Does a fish 'n chips shop around the corner sound familiar at all?

Separated at conception. It's always a tragedy.

[iverglas]

177. gets on one's last nerve, this does

"Maybe even you your?"

Does this one really not grasp the fact that when tucsonlib said:

"Maybe even you your extraordinary ignorance might be capable of learning something...."

He was offering a virtually DIRECT QUOTE from what this one himself had said??? --

Um, maybe you your twisted universe that's what he said.


Humour is idiosyncratic. Some may not find this joke amusing, but to carry on at this length and not grasp that the joke is on himself??

Sheee-eeesh.

[tucsonlib]

180. But We've Both Been Misinterpreting His Every Word!

Don't you see? Those weren't insults he was spewing at us! They were an ultra-sophisticated form of sarcasm! And what we may have seen as examples of specious reasoning, or poor language skills, or the ravings of some pre-pubescent doofus were, in reality, a veritable cornucopia of subtle literary techniques. That rhetorical rhetoric! His alliterating use of alliterations! Those metaphoric metaphors!! The satirical satire!!! Those strategically-placed misspelled words!!!!


We should be so ashamed of ourselves......


Oh, and just in case he fails to catch it (which is, shall we say, um, probable), I am going to attach this subtle hint - for my first and last time ever:


:sarcasm:

[iverglas]

182. who 'we', white man?

Those weren't insults he was spewing at us!

Nothing aimed in this direction.

I'm invisible, doncha know!

:evilgrin:


I sure do seem to be over in that other thread. Gotta go have din, will see what drek it has attracted when I wake up ...

[tucsonlib]

184. You're Right! BOY Was I Wrong!

Check out #183. Sounds like luv to moi. He thinks you're "clever"! On the other hand, he thinks I'm the more amusing one.

Now if only we could find a single thing even remotely attractive about this wiener.


:pals:

[eqfan592]

185. Awww, psuedo freeper love.

How sweet. :) Anywho, this "wiener" will leave you two alone now in your mutual admiration society. Have fun ;)

[JonQ]

141. Yeah, I'm not sure where you're pulling that one from

when I clearly stated houses were manmade objects.

But let me get this straight, you're saying you hate the constitution and would like to live in a fascist dictatorship that routinely executes minorities and bans freedom of expression? That is what you're saying. I give up . . . (or do I have to only use your statements? Am I not free to make stuff up out of thin air?)

[JonQ]

143. But just to make sure

you don't believe houses are manmade objects and in fact simply exist (unchanged since the 1700s) with no help from mankind?

Because I dispute your claim of divine housing.

[tucsonlib]

148. Okay, Bozo..

So you meant "houses". Still irrelevant to the OP, unless you contend we have the right TO KEEP AND BEAR HOUSES.

[JonQ]

150. So you now acknowledge that my argument was in fact

based on what I said, and not some made up argument you had in your head. Good, this is progress.

And from the OP "Only in the 2A do you find a right which is tied to some external, manufactured (man-made), inanimate objects."

So a right being tied to what the government may or may not do with your house is not tied to some "external, manufactured (man-made), inanimate object"?

If you wish to maintain this argument you are in the rather awkward position of arguing that houses are not manufactured, inanimate objects. I don't envy you for this. Or else claim that the 3rd has nothing to do with putting troops up in your manufactured home, again a difficult position as it clearly spells that out.

[tucsonlib]

151. Growing Weary Of Your Nitpicking

And I'm not alone. Read whatever you like into the OP, but spare us your personal agenda. The OP was never intended to present any "arguments".


ob·nox·ious (ŏb-nŏk'shəs, əb-)
adj.

1. Very annoying or objectionable; offensive or odious

[JonQ]

152. Snicker

you spent whole paragraphs lambasting me for a spelling error, as somehow negating my argument, and now you accuse me of nit-picking? You know that's absurd right? Surely you do, I'll chalk this up to projection on your part.

And your OP did present an argument, namely that the 2nd was somehow unique among the other amendments. I have disputed this with facts. You have attacked my spelling and then launched in to personal insults.

I think that says about all we need to know on this subject.

[tucsonlib]

155. I Direct You To Comment #144 And Its Sub-Thread

You nearly succeeded, with the aid of one or two other miscreants, in hijacking this thread with your nonsense (which you like to call "facts").

"I think that says about all we need to know on this subject."


Does this mean we're finally rid of you? We all certainly hope so.....

:dunce: :spank: :thumbsdown: :hi:

[JonQ]

186. Hijacking the thread by addressing the issue you brought up in the OP

Not my definition of hijacking.

You made a claim, that claim was wrong, I and several others attempted to show you the error of your ways. You managed, with great effort, to avoid learning anything.

[JonQ]

187. I also think it's safe to conclude

that houses are in fact physical manmade objects, like guns. And not naturally occurring.

Most people understand this.

[tucsonlib]

188. Still Claiming There's A Right To "Keep And Bear HOUSES"??

The 2A is still unique in this regard.

Most people understand this.

[JonQ]

189. You seem a bit obsessed with that word

"bear".

Your original post didn't say the 2nd amendment was different because you are allowed to "bear" those rights, as opposed to the others.

I'll remind you what you wrote: Only in the 2A do you find a right which is tied to some external, manufactured (man-made), inanimate objects.

Now you've found yourself in the awkward position of trying to argue that the 3rd (which deals with what the government may not do with your *house*) is not "tied to some external, manufactured (man-made), inanimate object", as you claimed in your original post. I can see why you're desperately trying to redirect the argument by making up quotes I never made and attributing them to me. Really, I do, I know exactly the predicament you're in. That you can't possibly "win" the argument based on your quotes, my quotes, or the facts, so you try this tactic.

But really, I think everyone sees through what you're trying to do. Just stop now, you're embarrassing yourself.

Now go ahead and prove that the 3rd in no way references objects that are manmade.

[iverglas]

160. oooh, alliteration

ob·nox·ious (ŏb-nŏk'shəs, əb-)
adj.
1. Very annoying or objectionable; offensive or odious


I love alliteration.

Somebody does seem to have got his knickers in a knot. ;)

[benEzra]

68. Umm, weapons were invented way more than 5000 years ago...

and they'll still exist 5000 years in the future.



Ötzi carried both a close-range self-defense weapon (and all-purpose cutting tool) and a distance weapon, a finely crafted bow.

Even the English-common-law thread of the right to keep and bear arms that led most directly to the 2ndA predates the invention of firearms.

The Second Amendment says "arms" that can be "kept and borne" by a single individual. That includes small arms, but is not limited to firearms. When phased plasma rifles are invented, they'll fall under the 2ndA, though there will probably be a Title 1/Title 2 demarcation based on capabilities.

[gorfle]

144. On objects and the natural right of self-defense.

Most people around here agree that we have a natural right to self-defense. This is likely true in general, and this has likely been true for a long time.

However, even in the founders' day there were arms available to men so that they need not fight for their survival like a primitive animal using only their hands and feet. Man has used arms for his own defense and the defense of nations for thousands of years, and by the time of the drafting of our Constitution it was common to use arms when exercising the natural right to self-defense, and thus they so worded it.

The focus of the 2nd amendment is enabling free states through armed people, not arms. This is why the founders were ambiguous on the type of arms, knowing that they would probably change over time.

[tucsonlib]

149. Agreed, But That's Not The Point Either

"Self-defense" may be the implied purpose of the 2A, but that isn't in the text. The central thesis of the OP - that the 2A is the only place in the Constitution that specifically references a right to possess an inanimate object has yet to be refuted.

[gorfle]

153. That's probably because...

That's probably because by 1776 effective defense against tyranny required a tool to do it.

None of the other rights require tools to effectively exercise them, hence the tools were not mentioned.

[tucsonlib]

154. Makes Sense

So you agree that the 2A is unique in this regard. Do you think (as I proposed in the OP, and before this thread devolved into a debate over whether or not there's a right to keep and bear houses, printing presses, $20 etc.) that the wording has made it more vulnerable to attack by gun-control advocates? More so, say, than if it had been worded (yes, I know this is also flawed, but I think you'll get the idea) as guaranteeing "an individual's right to self-defense by any appropriate means"?

Damn! This is the dialogue that the OP was supposed to have generated. Now, which key do I press to delete all the intervening flotsam and jetsam?
:fistbump:

[eqfan592]

158. Too bad the argument you make in post 149....

....is NOT the same argument you make in the OP. But of course, ignore little things like that is your specialty.

[gorfle]

164. Not really.

So you agree that the 2A is unique in this regard.

Let's look at the entire Bill of Rights:

* First Amendment – Establishment Clause, Free Exercise Clause; freedom of speech, of the press, Freedom of Religion, and of assembly; right to petition,

Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.

This particular amendment does not refer to any tangible item.

* Second Amendment – Militia (United States), Sovereign state, Right to keep and bear arms.

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.

This amendment refers to arms - objects being necessary to the security of a free State.

* Third Amendment – Protection from quartering of troops.

No Soldier shall, in time of peace be quartered in any house, without the consent of the Owner, nor in time of war, but in a manner to be prescribed by law.

This amendment refers to houses - objects being protected from occupation by soldiers.

* Fourth Amendment – Protection from unreasonable search and seizure.

The right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures, shall not be violated, and no Warrants shall issue, but upon probable cause, supported by Oath or affirmation, and particularly describing the place to be searched, and the persons or things to be seized.

This amendment refers to people, houses, papers, and effects - objects being protected from unreasonable search and seizure.

* Fifth Amendment – due process, double jeopardy, self-incrimination, eminent domain.

No person shall be held to answer for any capital, or otherwise infamous crime, unless on a presentment or indictment of a Grand Jury, except in cases arising in the land or naval forces, or in the Militia, when in actual service in time of War or public danger; nor shall any person be subject for the same offence to be twice put in jeopardy of life or limb; nor shall be compelled in any criminal case to be a witness against himself, nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law; nor shall private property be taken for public use, without just compensation.

In addition to many intangible items, this amendment refers to property.

* Sixth Amendment – Trial by jury and rights of the accused; Confrontation Clause, speedy trial, public trial, right to counsel

In all criminal prosecutions, the accused shall enjoy the right to a speedy and public trial, by an impartial jury of the State and district where in the crime shall have been committed, which district shall have been previously ascertained by law, and to be informed of the nature and cause of the accusation; to be confronted with the witnesses against him; to have compulsory process for obtaining witnesses in his favor, and to have the Assistance of Counsel for his defense.

This amendment does not refer to any tangible object.

* Seventh Amendment – Civil trial by jury.

In suits at common law, where the value in controversy shall exceed twenty dollars, the right of trial by jury shall be preserved, and no fact tried by a jury, shall be otherwise re-examined in any court of the United States, than according to the rules of the common law.

This amendment does not refer to any tangible object.

* Eighth Amendment – Prohibition of excessive bail and cruel and unusual punishment.

Excessive bail shall not be required, nor excessive fines imposed, nor cruel and unusual punishments inflicted.

* Ninth Amendment – Protection of rights not specifically enumerated in the Bill of Rights.

The enumeration in the Constitution, of certain rights, shall not be construed to deny or disparage others retained by the people.

* Tenth Amendment – Powers of States and people.

The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.

These amendments do not cover any tangible objects.

So out of 10 of the amendments in the Bill of Rights, 4 of them, nearly half, refer to tangible objects being protected from the powers of the federal government.


Do you think (as I proposed in the OP, and before this thread devolved into a debate over whether or not there's a right to keep and bear houses, printing presses, $20 etc.) that the wording has made it more vulnerable to attack by gun-control advocates? More so, say, than if it had been worded (yes, I know this is also flawed, but I think you'll get the idea) as guaranteeing "an individual's right to self-defense by any appropriate means"?

No, I don't. I believe the meaning of the second amendment is quite clear as it is. The right of the people, who make up the militia that are necessary to a free state, to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed. Keep in mind here that self-defense is only a minor part of a free state. Primarily the founders had in mind resistance against oppression en mass from without and within, not protecting oneself from a mugger. Of course, any oppression is an oppression, no matter how small.

[tucsonlib]

170. Thank You For The First Intelligent, Relevant Response To My OP

I may disagree with you (The "objects" in the other three amendments are mostly referenced as things that are provisionally protected, not things we are specifically guaranteed the right to keep and bear), but that's just my initial reaction. Your comment deserves further study.

At least you're not arguing that the 1st guarantees a right to keep and bear printing presses. Where would I find room for the damn thing?

Thanks again.

:toast:



(typo fixed)

[eqfan592]

171. Look, gorfle! You made a new friend!

;-)

[tucsonlib]

174. well, let's not get carried away here......

But you have to admit he looks pretty sane and normal when measured against certain double-digit-IQ-packing yahoos (who shall remain nameless, of course.......)

[eqfan592]

175. Oh, why keep them nameless now, tucson!?

You're so willing to be overtly insulting of others intelligence that I can't honestly believe you would choose NOW to put forward a demonstration of even mild decorum!

[iverglas]

176. well *I* am insulted

Tucsonlib merits your continuing stream of venom, and here's me, out in the cold.

:sob:

[tucsonlib]

178. I'm Suddenly Reminded...

of when the DOJ issued a paper warning that right-wing extremism posed a threat to national security. Instantly every Republican in Congress voiced outrage, demanding that the AG apologize for having insulted them so.

They, too, were incapable of seeing any irony in what they were doing...

[eqfan592]

179. Ahhh, but it would only be ironic....

....if I were claiming that I myself was never overtly offensive in regards to another person's intelligence. I know this for a fact to not be true, so I have made no such claim. ;)


Though maybe in your version of things I did make such a claim. It's hard to say, you know. You did earlier try to claim that someone was arguing soldiers were objects, something that also only appeared to occur in your mind. Keeping track of all those realities must be difficult!

EDIT: Actually, I'm not sure if it would even be ironic if I DID meet the above condition. Hypocritical would be a more appropriate word if that were the case.

[tucsonlib]

181. I Wasn't Talking About You

Refer to Comment #180.

It's not addressed to you though, so kindly resist any temptation to reply. Besides, didn't you already promise to go home?

[eqfan592]

183. Ahhh, you weren't talking about me...

...yet it was in reply to my post. Ok, if you say so. :P

I noticed post 180. It's more of your usual alternate reality type work. Fairly typical of your posts. You and Iver are becoming fast friends would be my guess as well. You're not nearly as clever as she is, though. She really knows how to twist the dagger on someones sanity (soak it up Iver, as this is the closest thing you'll get to a compliment from me ;) ).

The ploy's you use are far more transparent, and thus far more amusing. Especially since you are obviously impressed with your own "cleverness."

[backwoodsbob]

167. keep and bear arms was relevent 5000 years ago

the arms were different but the idea was the same.

Imagine a village elder 5000 years ago telling a tribe they must throw away there clubs and atlatles because they were too dangerous