My gun control compromise

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by Maccabee, Jan 4, 2020.

  1. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I provided quotes from you and me to keep it in context. Everything I said in response to your posts was fully and absolutely backed up in my responses. Your denial just proves my point. You may like guns but you either don't understand or just don't care a bit about the Constitution and the 2nd Amendment.

    If you're not man enough or wise enough to defend your own posts then you should consider not making them. If you want to go crying to the mods, the go for it. If you want a place where you can make comments and not get called on them, I suggest a blog with comments blocked. You took your words to the public square. Expect to get called when you're wrong.
     
  2. Well Bonded

    Well Bonded Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 5, 2018
    Messages:
    9,049
    Likes Received:
    4,354
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Once again a total lie you quoted your own words not mine.
     
  3. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We were talking about the Constitution and its amendments. You were content to claim that you (and a “sea” of others”) knew far more about how the Amendments work than Levant.

    Now I’m not here to defend Levant—he is doing quite well on his own. But he was correct, and I knew—based on the mere fact that he contradicted you—that you would not accept what he said. So, I posted SCOTUS case law for you to let you know how wrong you were.

    You were absolutely convinced you knew what you were talking about, and then you were proven wrong. You refused to admit it, and down the rabbit hole we went to avoid that admission.

    Now as for your latest—I apologize for my use of sarcasm. It can be a failure of mine, particularly when confronted with open condescension. My sarcasm is also an indicator of my waning belief that you had anything of substance to offer.

    But I am willing to start afresh if you are.

    If you want to talk about what you believe to be the “core” of gun violence in America, then be up front about it. You have never asked me to discuss it with you, so don’t pretend that I am avoiding the issue. In any event, you have called me out for not discussing something with you which you have not asked me to discuss with you yet, and so I take your latest as a request to do so.

    So fine, let’s talk about it. I am a state Prosecutor in Virginia. I have been prosecuting all forms of violence—including gun violence—for 22 years. I spent 5 years before that defending those accused of crime, including gun violence. I am very familiar with gun violence—and with homicides in particular. My experiences are limited to the cases I have defended and prosecuted, so I am no better placed than anyone else to discuss national trends. But I do have some knowledge gleaned from dealing with the subject on a smaller and more intense level.

    Perhaps we can agree on some things. Perhaps not. The only way to know is to talk to each other about it. I am game if you are.
     
  4. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Regarding the 2nd Amendment, Presser v. Illinois, 116 U.S. 252 (1886) directly addressed this state application issue:

    The background in Presser was this….The State of Illinois had a law that forbade armed assembly and marches unless by the state’s recognized militia or actual military troops. Presser was indicted for the following alleged conduct:

    'did unlawfully belong to, and did parade and drill in the city of Chicago with, an unauthorized body of men with arms, who had associated themselves together as a military company and organization, without having a license from the governor, and not being a part of, or belonging to, 'the regular organized volunteer militia' of the state of Illinois, or the troops of the United States.'

    One of the challenges he raised was the law he was prosecuted under violated the 2nd Amendment. Here the Court dealt with that claim by stating the Amendment only acts to deter the actions of the federal government:

    We are next to inquire whether the fifth and sixth sections of article 11 of the Military Code are in violation of the other provisions of the constitution of the United States relied on by the plaintiff in error. The first of these is the second amendment, which declares: '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.'

    We think it clear that the sections under consideration, which only forbid bodies of men to associate together as military organizations, or to drill or parade with arms in cities and towns unless authorized by law, do not infringe the right of the people to keep and bear arms. But a conclusive answer to the contention that this amendment prohibits the legislation in question lies in the fact that the amendment is a limitation only upon the power of congress and the national government, and not upon that of the state. It was so held by this court in the case of U. S. v. Cruikshank, 92 U. S. 542, 553, in which the chief justice, in delivering the judgment of the court, said that the right of the people to keep and bear arms 'is not a right granted by the constitution. Neither is it in any manner dependent upon that instrument for its existence. The second amendment declares that it shall not be infringed, but this, as has been seen, means no more than that it shall not be infringed by congress. This is one of the amendments that has no other effect than to restrict the powers of the national government, leaving the people to look for their protection against any violation by their fellow-citizens of the rights it recognizes to what is called in City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 102 139, the 'powers which relate to merely municipal legislation, or what was perhaps more properly called internal police,' 'not surrendered or restrained' by the constitution of the United States.' See, also, Barron v. Baltimore, 7 Pet. 243; Fox v. State, 5 How. 410; Twitchell v. Com., 7 Wall. 321, 327; Jackson v. Wood, 2 Cow. 819;Com. v. Purchase, 2 Pick. 521; U. S. v. Cruikshank, 1 Woods, 308; North Carolina v. Newsom, 5 Ired. 250; Andrews v. State, 3 Heisk. 165; Fife v. State, 31 Ark. 455.

    Cruikshank took a similar view of 2nd Amendment application to the states. Hence, I believe, the necessity of SCOTUS to incorporate the Amendment against state infringement through the 14th Amendment in McDonald v. Chicago.

    Note the Presser Court also stated that since the law only forbade creating your own military organizations, or marching and drilling as such, it did not infringe on the right of the people to keep and bear arms. This is significant for this reason: It means the Court—even this far back in history—did not accept the false interpretation of the Amendment—pushed today by the anti-gun crowd—that the Amendment only recognizes a right to keep and bear arms as a member of a state-sponsored militia. If it had, it would have shut down the entire argument above with a statement saying “the RKBA is reserved to active participation in a state sponsored militia, and Mr. Presser, being a private citizen who is not a member of a state militia, has no standing to bring a 2nd Amendment violation claim.”

    In other words, the Court had to accept that a private individual had a RKBA outside state-sponsored militia service before it would even hear the 2nd amendment claim.

    And, see the ending of this discussion from the Court—where the Court does say the states are restrained from infringing upon the individual citizen’s RKBA:

    It is undoubtedly true that all citizens capable of bearing arms constitute the reserved military force or reserve militia of the United States as well as of the states, and, in view of this prerogative of the general government, as well as of its general powers, the states cannot, even laying the constitutional provision in question out of view, prohibit the people from keeping and bearing arms, so as to deprive the United States of their rightful resource for maintaining the public security, and disable the people from performing their duty to the general government. But, as already stated, we think it clear that the sections under consideration do not have this effect.
     
    Last edited: Feb 9, 2020
  5. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution can be changed and that is a fact. However, if you believe that more guns equal fewer shootings …. or if that is in line with some agenda regardless of your personal opinion then you need to discuss the issue with someone who is either naïve about the consequences of lethal weapons or with someone who is impressed by the manipulation of legal matters and feels no compassion for his own countrymen. I am neither of those.
     
  6. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Just some basis for understanding my view of the Supreme Court - I suspect you'll mostly agree. Supreme Court rulings are interesting but they are, in the end, mostly just opinions. Mostly because we know that many so-called-opinions are purely political or based on personal agendas and not at all based on the Constitution - so sometimes they're outright lies. Opinions because they don't always agree and the direction of the Court is often swayed by just a single vote. If four can be wrong, how can the remaining five be unquestioningly correct? Opinions also because they have, even if rarely, overturned the rulings of previous courts. Since the Constitution didn't change (the 14th aside for this discussion) then either one court was right and the other wrong, or perhaps both wrong, but they can't possibly both be right.

    So, when Justice Woods, in the majority opinion re. Presser, wrote that the the 2nd Amendment only restricted the powers of Congress to infringe on the right to keep and bear arms, he was, quite simply, wrong. The Founders demonstrated quite clearly in the words of the 1st Amendment that they were fully capable of being explicit when they intended to restrict actions of Congress: Congress shall make no law..."

    The Court was correct that the 2nd Amendment did not protect private militias because the Constitution clearly sets the expectation that militias are organized by the States. It is made more clear with the 10th Amendment. The authority to organize and regulate militias is not granted to the Federal Government and it is not denied to the States so it is in the domain of the States. Only if it were explicitly denied to the States in the Constitution would it fall to the people. The key thing to take from the 10th is that very little power is given to the Federal Government, and very little is explicitly denied to the States; the States have potentially awesome power, as long as their own constitutions permit it.

    Of course if any State declined to restrict private militias, I suppose a person could form one but Illinois had banned private militias. So the Court was correct to affirm the decision in Presser. The problem with the decision, as is often the case, is with the extra stuff they threw in - like the statement about the 2nd Amendment only applying to the States. The proper ruling would have been to simply state that the 2nd Amendment did not apply. In fact, the most proper path for the Supreme Court would have been to decline to hear the case at all; the 2nd Amendment claim by Presser and his attorneys was clearly without merit.

    In any case, the Court in Presser could not have ruled that Presser did not have the right to bear arms because he wasn't part of a militia; that wasn't the argument made before them by the State of Illinois. The Court often violates their founding principle as the highest level of appeals court, having given to themselves a primary role of constitutional review, and rule beyond the case in front of them. Of course they also do the opposite, ruling very narrowly on individual points in a case because they lack the courage to rule as widely as they should. Examples include the narrow rulings in both Heller and McDonald where the court could have easily ended the infringements on the 2nd Amendment but ruled so as to make sure they didn't give openings to challenge Miller, even though Miller clearly conflicts with the 2nd Amendment and with current jurisprudence on the topic. (Don't you just love the word jurisprudence? If you look it up, what it should say is, "the collection of writings and documents used to give cover to the violation of the Constitution by the courts.")

    Cruikshank has been found to be so full of holes that it may not be a great source of stare decicis arguments - its still often used but is also often overturned. For instance, Cruikshank held that the right to peaceably assemble held only to the Federal Government and not the States. In McDonald, the Court described the opinion from De Jonge v Oregon (1937) stating that the Supreme Court, in De Jonge, ruled not that peaceable assembly was incorporated or should be incorporated by the 14th, but that it was a fundamental right and only safeguarded by the 14th - reminding us of the 10th that doesn't add any new protection; it simply reminds us of what's there.

    Likewise, I argue that the 2nd is a fundamental right, safeguarded by the 14th. There's a flaw in De Jonge and McDonald, though, in that the Founders were very explicit in the 1st Amendment in the words, "Congress shall make no law". That wording is not found elsewhere in the Bill of Rights demonstrating that the Founders were explicitly targeting only the Federal Government. This means that the Court in De Jonge was wrong that it was a fundamental right protected against the States by the Constitution. Even so, their point that there are parts of the Bill of Rights applicable to the States regardless of the 14th, and that the 14th only safeguards some of those rights, versus potentially incorporating some other rights not already protected from the States, is an important concept. It is this same idea upon which I make my argument that the 2nd Amendment was a fundamental right. The 14th, like the 10th, protects that right but, in both cases, they're really redundant.

    So when we get to incorporation by the Supreme Court, we must ask whether the Supreme Court has the power or authority to actually incorporate or not incorporate. Do they have the power to change the relationship between the people, the States, and the Federal Government without amending the Constitution? Of course not. Any discussion of incorporation can only be in response to one of two things: either a thing has always applied to the States or it was incorporated by the 14th Amendment. The thing about precedence is that it is hard to overcome especially when it is helpful, even if inaccurate. The 2nd Amendment protects a fundamental right, clearly intended to apply to the States because a functional militia would be impossible to create if the people are disarmed - besides the fact that there was no distinction in the text to limits its application, a thing the Founders were clearly able to do in other amendments.

    In McDonald, the Court held that the 2nd applied to the States because of the Due Process clause of the 14th. This is a ridiculous concept at its very foundation. If red flag laws were otherwise constitutional then using them to remove someone's guns without a hearing would be protected from by the Due Process clause because there's a process involved and a potential process remedy but rights and other privileges that have no relation to a process clearly don't come under that clause. In Twining v New Jersey (1908), the Court ruled that the 5th did not apply to the States under the Due Process clause of the 14th because there was no due process connection.

    Twining would be eventually be overturned - I haven't dug into the case details to see if it was on Privileges and Immunity or on Due Process. Point is, and this was key to the separate opinion by Thomas in McDonald, protection of the right to keep and bear arms is a privilege of all citizens of the Federal Government and subject to the 14th P&I clause safeguards, to use the word from Presser.

     
  7. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    We have already agreed the Constitution can be amended. Your problem is relating this known fact to reality. You believe the process to create that change, the difficulty it entails, and indeed the true effect of that change if one could make it happen, are all irrelevant to the claim that “it can be amended.” Those who know the Constitution—who actually strive to make changes to it—understand how important these factors really are.

    As far as our discussion goes….There is no need to try and set preconditions on what you will allow me to say or not say in our discussion. What that sounds like is you don’t want to talk with me unless I tell you that I will agree with you—that you don’t want to hear any opinion which you disagree with.

    Now if all you really want is an assurance that someone would be your echo chamber and agree with how right you must be, then preconditions like you want might matter. But if you have confidence in your views then it should not matter whether I agree with you or not. It should not matter that your views are exposed to (potentially) contrary opinions. We both know you have been exposed to contrary opinions already, and you have demonstrated the ability to tell people you think they are wrong.

    You have no idea what I will say until you actually engage me in the discussion you said you wanted.

    Do you want to talk with me about the issue or not?
     
  8. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Levant,

    On the question of fundamental rights, I believe the specific enumeration of a right in the BoR indicates the founder’s belief the right was fundamental. SCOTUS may have been wrong about the lack of application of the BoR to the states. But that was their general view. That was also the view of those who fathered the 14th Amendment. And there can be no question that the intent of the Amendment was to ensure the states were bound by the BoR. Since we are discussing the 14th Amendment, I would like to present some history of it—since I feel it was inextricably linked to the RKBA….

    We all know that after legal slavery was abolished the former slaveholding states (mine included) attempted to create a system of de facto slavery. The denial of the black man’s individual RKBA was one of the aims of this system. Consider these examples brought to the attention of Congress:

    [concerning the State of Kentucky] “the civil law prohibits the colored man from bearing arms. . .their arms are taken from them by the civil authorities. . . .Thus, the right of the people to keep and bear arms as provided in the Constitution is infringed. . .” Executive Document #30, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 1, pp. 233 and 236 (1866) [from the Report of the Commissioner of the Freedmen's Bureau]. [bold emphasis added]

    [from Mississippi’s "Act to Regulate the Relation of Master and Apprentice Relative to Freedmen, Free Negroes, and Mulattoes."] “That no freedman, free negro or mulatto. . .not licensed to do so by the board of police of his or her county, shall keep or carry fire-arms of any kind, or any ammunition, dirk or bowie knife. . .” Laws of Mississippi, 1865, p. 165 (November 29, 1865).

    How were laws like this viewed by Congress? “Northern Republicans professed to see this new legislation at the South the virtual re-enslavement of the Negroes.” J. Burgess, Reconstruction and the Constitution, 1866-1876, p. 51-52 (1902).

    The complaints were not limited to the mere passage of laws, however:

    In Mississippi rebel State forces, men who were in the rebel armies, are traversing the State, visiting the freedmen, disarming them, perpetrating murders and outrages on them. . . .” Congressional Globe, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 1, at p. 40 (December 13, 1865) [Speech of Senator Henry Wilson (Republican-Massachusetts)]

    Yet another Senator complained that the Mississippi state militia would roam throughout the state and habitually "hang some freedmen or search negro houses for arms." Congressional Globe, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 1, Senate Report Number 30, p. 813 (February 13, 1866) [Speech of Senator Lyman Trumball (Republican-Illinois)]

    And throughout all of this evidence gathering it was believed in Congress (whether right or wrong) that the BoR was indeed powerless to stop this state-sponsored oppression of the black man’s RKBA, his right to vote, his right of free speech and assembly, etc. This is the atmosphere surrounding the passage of the 14th. Amendment.

    A lot has been said about the view of one of the principle house sponsors, Congressman John Bingham—and with good reason. Justice Hugo Black (who held the view that the 14th. totally incorporated the BoR) called Bingham “the Madison” of the 14th. Amendment. Bingham was a firebrand abolitionist before the civil war. This in turn caused him to be looked upon as a natural leader in the fight for the 14th. Amendment. Bingham made his position plain on the intended effect of the proposed 14th Amendement:

    "The proposition pending before the House is simply a proposition to arm the Congress of the United States, by the consent of the people of the United States, with the power to enforce the bill of rights as it stands in the Constitution today." Congressional Globe, U.S. House of Reprsentatives, February 28, 1866, p. 1088

    And this was the prevailing view of the Amendment in the house, particularly as applied to the 2nd. Amendment individual RKBA. See, for example:

    Sir, I find in the Constitution of the United States an article which declares that "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." For myself, I shall insist that the reconstructed rebels of Mississippi respect the Constitution in their local laws. . . .”Congressional Globe, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 1, p. 1838 (April 7, 1866) [Speech of congressman Sindey Clarke (Republican-Kansas)]. [bold emphasis added]

    The Constitution clearly describes that to be a republican form of government for which it was expressly framed. A government. . .where "no law shall be made prohibiting a free exercise of religion;". . .where "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed;"”. . . Congressional Globe, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 2, p. 1266 (March 24, 1866) [Speech of congressman Roswell Hart (Republican-New York)] [bold emphasis added]

    Make the colored man a citizen of the United States and he has every right which you or I have as citizens of the United States under the laws and Constitution of the United States. . . .He has a defined status; he has a country and a home; a right to defend himself and his wife and children; a right to bear arms. . . .” Congressional Globe, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 2, p. 1266 (March 8, 1866) [Speech of congressman Henry J. Raymond (Republican-New York)] [bold emphasis added]

    Additionally, there was no doubt expressed about the purpose of the Amendment in the Senate. See, for example, the speech of the Senate sponsor, Jacob Howard:

    To these privileges and immunities should be added the personal rights guarantied and secured by the first eight amendments of the Constitution; such as the freedom of speech and of the press; the right of the people peaceably to assemble and petition the Government for a redress of grievances, a right appertaining to each and all the people; the right to keep and to bear arms; the right to be exempted from the quartering of soldiers in a house without the consent of the owner; the right to be exempt from unreasonable searches and seizures, and from any search or seizure except by virtue of a warrant issued upon a formal oath or affidavit; the right of an accused person to be informed of the nature of the accusation against him, and his right to be tried by an impartial jury of the vicinage; and also the right to be secure against excessive bail and against cruel and unusual punishments.. . .[A]ll these immunities, privileges, rights, thus guarantied by the Constitution or recognized by it, are secured to the citizens solely as a citizen of the United States and as a party in their courts. They do not operate in the slightest degree as a restraint or prohibition upon State legislation. . . .The great object of the first section of this amendment is, therefore, to restrain the power of the States and compel them at all times to respect these great fundamental guarantees...”Congressional Globe, 39th. Congress, 1st. Session, part 3, p. 2765 (May 23, 1866) [Speech of Senator Jacob M. Howard (Republican-Michigan)] [bold emphasis added] Note this quote was also cited by Justices Black and Duncan in their concurring opinion in Duncan v. LOUISIANA, 391 U.S. 145, 167 (1968), which held that the 14th. Amendment required the states to honor a defendant's 6th. Amendment right to trial by jury in criminal cases.

    How did the Senate react to Senator Howard’s description of the Amendment? “In the entire Senate debate on the Fourteenth Amendment, running from May 23 to June 8, not a single senator challenged Senator Howard's declaration that Section 1 made the first eight amendments enforceable against the states.” Irving Bryant, The Bill of Rights, p. 337 (1965). [bold emphasis added]

    The significance of this history is this:

    If these men believed the RKBA as recognized in the 2nd Amendment only applied to a right to armed participation in a state-sponsored militia, then none of this history would have taken place that protects the right. It would be absurd to suggest these men were attempting to protect the black man’s right to participate in the state-sponsored militia that was going about to hang him and search his house for arms. Rather, the right these men were protecting was the right of every individual to keep and bear arms for defense of themselves or others—as recognized in the 2nd Amendment. This is why you never see anti-gunners talk about this history—it runs contrary to their desired false interpretation of the RKBA.

    ---

    “Editor Loyal Georgian: Have colored persons a right to own and carry firearms?--A Colored Citizen

    Almost every day we are asked questions similar to the above. We answer certainly you have the same right to own and carry arms that other citizens have. You are not only free but citizens of the United States and as such entitled to the same privileges granted to other citizens by the Constitution. . . .

    Article II, of the amendments to the Constitution of the United States, gives the people the right to bear arms, and states that this right shall not be infringed. Any person, white or black, may be disarmed if convicted of making an improper or dangerous use of weapons, but no military or civil officer has the right or authority to disarm any class of people, thereby placing them at the mercy of others. All men, without distinction of color, have the right to keep and bear arms to defend their homes, families or themselves.” From issues of the Loyal Georgian (a prominent black newspaper of the time), January 20, 27 and February 3, 1886.
     
    Levant likes this.
  9. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Are you saying that I refuse to understand that any (or perhaps specific) changes to the Constitution are difficult to achieve? I think at this moment it would be a good idea for you to explain what EXACTLY your problem is with what I have said ….. or what you think I have said. You can perhaps quote the bit(s) that upsets you.
     
  10. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The problem lays with the conduct on the part of yourself, and in the presentation of the message on the part of yourself, rather with the message itself. Continually repeating the claim that the united states constitution can be changed, does not mean anything when refusing to acknowledge that said change is deliberately difficult, if not outright impossible in the highly partisan and divided world of today where bipartisan cooperation is all but unheard of.

    Just as the united states constitution can be changed, water is also wet. But simply because the united states constitution can be changed, does not amount to a valid excuse to ignoring the constitutional protections attached to legal firearms ownership. Repeating the claim is not an legitimate reason for harassing legal firearm owners.
     
  11. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I do not believe that publicly announcing that one is aware of the processes required in changing the constitution is a prerequisite to stating that change is achievable.


    Exactly. And yet you think it necessary for me to declare that water is wet prior to/at the moment of praising professional divers. What is the purpose of that and why would someone stretch the point over several posts? What is it you are waiting for?
     
  12. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    To acknowledge that the united states constitution being something that can be changed, does not in any way serve to negate the constitutional protections attached to legal firearms ownership, or otherwise justify the discriminatory firearm-related restrictions that so many call for and demand to be implemented.
     
  13. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Why do you insist that we cover the same ground again? I don’t want to have to go over this again, but since you say it’s a “good idea”….

    Levant said repealing the amendment does nothing and said the amendment did not create or grant rights.

    You told him “that’s not how amendments work” and claimed there is a “sea” of people who disagree with you.

    This is the point at which I got into the discussion. I decided to quote SCOTUS case law that proved you did not know what you were talking about. The cases (and my argument) explained that Levant was correct—the RKBA pre-existed the Constitution, the RKBA did not depend on the Amendment for its existence, the amendment merely recognized the right, and repealing the right would not destroy it. My argument was the right would still be enforceable through the 9th Amendment—which I would encourage you to read. (I also asked you if you were willing to discuss what the nature of the RKBA was. I note you have not accepted that offer.)

    To this you said what I posted “makes no difference” and you noted the constitution can, in fact, be amended. (completely ignoring my explanation that simply amending the 2nd out of the Constitution would have no effect on the existence of the right) You said this fact of possible amendment meant the constitution was made up of “fluid elements.”

    That led me to direct your attention to the difficulties of the amendment process, and I explained the full measure of what must be done to destroy constitutional recognition of the pre-existing RKBA.

    You then admitted that you knew very little about the Constitution except that it can be amended. Your point—as I take it—was “shall not be infringed” does not render the amendment unchangeable (to which I agreed). Your emphasis was the constitution can be amended or repealed, “full stop.”

    I brought to your attention a second time the difficulty of the amendment process said I wanted to make sure you understood the difficulty of the process affects the ability to change the Constitution.

    Your next reply ignored this concept (again) and instead accused me of “completely side-stepping the fundamental subject” of the causes of gun violence in America—a accusation you know is without merit because it is not a topic you have asked me about.

    And here is where things got really interesting—because of what has transpired after you called me out…

    I addressed your false accusation that I was ignoring discussing the causes of gun violence in America. I told you I was ready to discuss the subject with you and invited you to have that discussion with me.

    You then side-stepped my request to discuss the topic you accused me of side-stepping. Rather than say “Ok let’s talk about it” you deflected by saying if I had particular views on the subject (views you have never heard me express to you because you have never asked), then I needed to talk to someone else. In addition to this, you went back to the importance of the fact that the Constitution can be amended. (please understand that by now I am assured that this is one aspect of the Constitution you do know and are comfortable stating)

    I then—because you have yet to acknowledge how the difficulty of the amendment process has any relevance to whether it can be done or not—reminded you of the difficulty of the process. And I now admit that this was a mistake on my part, because it gave you a continuing reason to respond while ignoring the issue you are avoiding.

    You see, I watched you side-step my invitation to discuss the subject you falsely accused me of side-stepping, and so this time I decided to directly ask you whether or not you would engage me on the subject.

    Your reply has once again used this amending the Constitution squabble to avoid answering a direct request to know whether you are willing to discuss the topic you accused me of side-stepping. Your latest reply is nothing more than a diversion away from the subject you oh-so-recently called “fundamental.”

    So, here is what I have to say to your latest….You have already proven you don’t understand my Constitution—by both your wrong assertion to Levant and by your direct admission of your lack of knowledge. You are hung up on the argument that the Constitution can be amended but you will not acknowledge the difficulty of doing so. All the above recounting of our brief relationship in this forum is intended to answer your demand that I explain where I see you are on that issue. I am convinced that you can read what has transpired before, and the only reason I have noted this history is to hopefully avoid another deflection from the pending issue between us.

    That is how you have responded after I asked you for the second time to discuss the issue you claimed I was side-stepping.

    Perhaps, when you falsely accused me of avoiding it, you did not expect my response would be a direct request to go ahead and have that discussion. But that is the response you got—and it is one I maintain. Regardless of what you expected, I want you to understand that you should not accuse me of side-stepping an issue (even when you have never brought it up beforehand) unless you are prepared to have me call you out and agree to have that discussion.

    None of this makes me angry or upset. But this avoidance of my request after you called me out does puzzle me. It gives the impression of a man who wants to raise a gale and then won’t come out of the harbor. I hope this impression is incorrect.

    And so the question I pose is very simple. Do you want to have the discussion you have accused me of avoiding, or will your next post find fresh excuses and diversions from the topic you called me out on?
     
  14. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don't feed the troll.
     
    Well Bonded likes this.
  15. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    My Lord. This is awfully wordy and a waste of precious time and effort.

    That's right. The majority of Americans do not understand (or accept) the fact that the Constitution can be changed … that amendments can be introduced … that amendments can be repealed. That is what I said. That is what I stand by.

    I stand by that comment as well. Siting the difficulties in the aforementioned changes “makes no difference”. The processes towards "change" are being wielded as a block or denial against changes being made. BUT THEY CAN BE MADE. Why does me pointing this out this upset you?
    Yes. That's right, “fluid elements” is exactly what I said. Did I or did I not tell you that you can use some other term if you don't like that one? So why do you bring it up again?

    Do you feel that you have represented (at least moderately) the point of there being difficulties in changing the Constitution? If so, then what is the problem here? You are clearly taking it very personally so I assume it's an ego thing. Relax. Chill out.
     
  16. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    So you feel it is wrong of me to point out Constitutional change/amendment/repeal possibilities? This sounds like a Franz Kafka scenario.
     
  17. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Pray tell, exactly what relevance does such have to the discussion? How does the simple fact the united states constitution can be amended, serve to change the fact the right to be armed is not contingent upon the existence of the second amendment, was not created by the second amendment, and would continue to exist even if the second amendment itself were to be repealed?
     
  18. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    "Fluid elements".
     
  19. Xenamnes

    Xenamnes Banned

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    23,895
    Likes Received:
    7,537
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meaningless and irrelevant. The united state supreme court has long hold the amendment did nothing to create the constitutional rights. They merely serve to recognize their preexisting nature, and specify the untied states federal government does not possess authority to prevent their legal exercise and/or use.

    The same "fluid elements" being constantly touted on the part of yourself, would also hold that criticism of the president of the united states could be punished with death, or cruel and unusual punishment. Under the argument presented on the part of yourself, anyone who was rude to Donald Trump would be executed, as there would be no first amendment protection to criticizing government officials.
     
  20. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Apparently, Democracy also contains "fluid elements". Unfortunately, it might fluidly develope into Fascism.
     
  21. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 9, 2015
    Messages:
    451
    Likes Received:
    354
    Trophy Points:
    63
    I apologize, my friend. Really, I do.

    I’m sorry if I have caused you to reassess the importance of the topic of the causes of gun violence.

    Here I though you believed it was THE “fundamental subject” to be discussed—at least when you accused me of ignoring it.

    Now, after three times telling you “I’m your huckleberry,” it seems your opinion has changed, and the topic is no longer so fundamentally important enough to actually talk about.

    I get it. I surprised you by offering to discuss it with you. You never had any intention of doing so, and you are looking for a way out. I will give it to you. Since you have avoided three requests to discuss the “fundamental” issue you accused me of avoiding, I will not make another.
     
    Levant likes this.
  22. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    I was going to trim the quote of your post just for length of my reply but there's not a piece of it that is not very key to this discussion. The only comment I have is that you were right in every bit of it but I'll highlight one part:

    This is exactly correct, too. Whether right or wrong. The Congress, I believe, knew that the Bill of Rights and the Constitution absolutely forbade the behavior of the Southern States. They also knew that it wasn't the Bill of Rights that was powerless to stop the Southern States, but Congress was powerless to stop them - neither the Constitution nor the Congress having an army or police force to enforce their will. They were right to address the offenses. I don't always agree with the intent, the effect, and the application of the 14th, but they had to do something.

    There are those who recognize the same in modern society and interpretation of the Constitution. The meaning has been so corrupted for so long that the only way we will likely get back to original intent will be new, freshly ratified, amendments that, like the 14th, really just require government to follow the Constitution. This is why I support an Article V convention of the States to fix what Congress has the authority, but lacks the will, to do.
     
  23. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    Good thing we're not a democracy because you're right. There are those inside and outside of our country who want to destroy our republic, change it to a democracy, and replace it with Facism... The facists in Antifa, for instance.
     
    Last edited: Feb 10, 2020
  24. Levant

    Levant Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 11, 2020
    Messages:
    1,085
    Likes Received:
    487
    Trophy Points:
    83
    Gender:
    Male
    The problem as I see it, is not personal against Thingamabob; it's an issue that must be addressed against every person arguing the same points as him. Many people in other countries, and more in our own country as we get immigrants or as parents abdicate their parental responsibilities to the schools, just do not have the American tradition of rights versus privileges that came from the hard lives and hard work of those who came from the old world to the new. So many in other countries, and more and more within our own, do not differentiate between rights and privileges. They, in their minds, have assumed some absolute power of government to rule over them. They believe that their rights come from men rather than from God or Nature, or whatever source of life in which a person believes.
     
  25. Thingamabob

    Thingamabob Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 12, 2017
    Messages:
    14,267
    Likes Received:
    4,465
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You are making a mountain out of a molehill. My guess is that you (and your credentials) have been wounded by what you call “me accusing you of avoiding the discussion of 'fundamental' issues”. I do not recall doing that but I will give you the benefit of the doubt. Let's move from that point.

    My opinion HAS NOT CHANGED. I see it as two separate but distinctly connected issues – one of gun violence with sub-topics of the causes and remedies …. and secondly, of adjusting laws/Constitution in an attempt at coming to terms with said violence. There has been no “change” in my opinion of either.

    You, as far as I can tell, are stone-walled by the difficulties in rectifying the issues of those remedies and (though I am not 100% certain) the causes of gun violence.

    Maybe I am reading too much into your stance or inherent limitations but I am beginning to see the issue of the Constitution as a cult manifest by which approximately 330 million citizens are being held hostage. The Constitution is a piece of paper upon which words have been scribbled, added by amendment, and reinstated by repeal. Let me repeat: “The Constitution is a piece of paper with words upon it” - words with “fluid elements” due to the aforementioned ability to adjust. This is a good thing but in order to reap its benefits one must be enlightened.

    As I said, I may be reading too much into your stance. You don't really believe that the Constitution is written with words of magical powers? Words that rise from the page in defence rendering ink pens inoperable? I can tell you one thing for certain – I am not going to get bogged down with you through a chicanery of judicial loopholes, superstition, and archaic imprudence.

    So … the point of the Constitution possessing “fluid elements” or qualities facsimile thereof have been substantiated. Correct? Now, what is the next subject you'd like to discuss?

    As I recall, your contribution (or reaction) to my intro to the "causes of gun violence" was one of indignity (full stop) which was a virtual hand palm to my face and no indication of any interest in the subject. Is it the “angry and hungry dog” thing that worries you? If that is your bone of contention then let's move forward from that point.
     

Share This Page