If Gun Confiscation Was Legally Passed and Upheld by the Court...

Discussion in 'Political Opinions & Beliefs' started by FlamingLib, Sep 14, 2019.

  1. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,502
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly! That's what started this debate.
    "Fair"? What preamble are you talking about? I'm talking about the "Preamble to the Constitution of the United States". Not to the Sponge Bob Movie.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  2. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends on why they used them. If the issue was "existential," yes. And the rationale would be to preserve the will of the majority and the Constitution. Most nuclear capabilities are justified by "deterrence," but which nuclear weapon armed countries do you think would not use them, if they felt their existence was threatened?
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  3. jack4freedom

    jack4freedom Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Oct 9, 2010
    Messages:
    19,874
    Likes Received:
    8,447
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Dirty gun grabbing Republicans started all of this in California because negroes were legally asserting their 2nd Ammendment Rights here. Then right wingers like Reagan, Ed Meese and some right wing nut from the State Senate said, to hell with the 2nd Amendment, we didn’t know it pertained to those gall durned colereds. Your boys got the ball rolling towards gun grabbing commienism. So own it!
     
    Golem likes this.
  4. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Most of the opinions offered on small arms in relation to unconventional warfare or uprising against a tyranny just cement in my mind how easy it would be. Could probably take the clowns with Louisville sluggers.
     
  5. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I see Reality has beat me to it so I’ll be brief. You are trying to have it both ways. Nobody accepts your premise we should use the preamble as any kind of authority. If we do, judges have nothing but prejudice and life experience to fall back on. There is no other option.

    You have seemed to disagree with legislating from the bench, but your current reliance on subjective interpretations of the preamble are just that. Again, others have already alluded to this but you’re argument is a snake eating it’s own tail.

    A country set up like ours and then following your judicial ideas is a rudderless ship blown where random winds of opinion blow. It’s no better in practice than a pure democracy.
     
    roorooroo likes this.
  6. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,502
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    There is nothing ambiguous about "general welfare" or "common defense"

    There is plenty of ambiguity in the federalist papers.

    However, you decided not to analyze this rationally. Only politically. Expected.... I was only responding to the poster's question. So... good luck patting yourself on the back for not having a decent response.
     
  7. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,502
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly. Next time clarify... don't obfuscate. And you might have a better chance at being taken seriously.

    Can't promise anything, though.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  8. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,988
    Likes Received:
    11,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I can't comment on Sponge Bob movies since I have never saw one. Apparently you have.

    The same preamble I am talking about. The preamble talks about equality. The problem is the decisions that come out of the constitution tend to favor one group over another or one person over another. Like I said, it is more a set of ideals than reality.
     
  9. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,502
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    +
    No idea who you think "nobody" is (Trump supporters talk more and more like Trump every day), but my proposal is the only objective way to make Supreme Court decisions that I have seen from anybody.

    I'm satisfied that you could not rebut a single word. I didn't expect you to. Nobody on the right has. Throughout the years I have only faced interesting challenges to the general idea from people on the left. Which have shaped my proposal somewhat. But you didn't even get off the ground. I guess I expected too much from you.
     
  10. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Like I said the other day. You aren’t ready or willing to desire understanding of the issue. You are just looking for paths to get what you want. And at least you are more honest about it than most who don’t like our Constitution.

    If you are going to resort to ad hominem again at least try something a little accurate or original. I’m not a Trump guy and there isn’t much I agree with the current right wing on. Using the same old slurs on everyone with a different opinion isn’t enticing independents like me to take progressives seriously.

    As always it’s been fun.
     
    Reality likes this.
  11. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,502
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Exactly! That's my point.That happens because of lack of an objective moral standard like the one I just proposed.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  12. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I understand many aren't.
    Many are, however, in favor of not having citizens owning nukes.

    There's a line in the sand for most everyone.
     
  13. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,502
    Likes Received:
    18,631
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I agree. But I don't even think it's necessary to repeal the 2nd A. Just a matter of interpreting it as it was written.
     
    Last edited: Sep 20, 2019
  14. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    You support civilians owning nuclear weapons?

    Constitutionality does matter to me. But I also am smart enough to know, there's many limits that society has placed on some of the constitution rights.
    Nuclear weapons and machine guns are but a couple.
     
  15. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    older than that, peter pan
     
  16. stone6

    stone6 Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Sep 3, 2019
    Messages:
    9,281
    Likes Received:
    2,780
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Agree...just put the militia clause back in the sentence. Scalia liked to count the number of angels that can sit on a pin head.
     
  17. kriman

    kriman Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Apr 29, 2018
    Messages:
    26,988
    Likes Received:
    11,044
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Then you must always agree with the SC when they make a decision.
     
  18. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Is that what people spend time worrying about? Citizen owned nukes? No wonder depression and suicide are so rampant.
     
  19. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    I doubt many worry about it.
    Because they are illegal to own. I bet there'd be a whole lot of worrying if owning nukes were legal.
    Hell, we don't want countries owning them, imagine the worry if individuals could own them.

    Do you think people worry about not owning nukes?
    Do you think you and I should be able to own them?
     
  20. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Are they illegal? I don’t know of any specific law prohibiting them. I’m sure anyone who could afford one could acquire one somehow no matter what the law is.

    Personally I don’t care. Why worry about something a law doesn’t have an effect on anyway?

    I think I should be able to own a nuke but you shouldn’t. :)
     
  21. dairyair

    dairyair Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Dec 20, 2010
    Messages:
    78,717
    Likes Received:
    19,868
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    See, you have a line in the sand. You are not a true constitutionalist.
    There is a law prohibiting machine guns. But you know of no law prohibiting nukes?
    Can the country of Iran own nukes?
     
  22. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,372
    Likes Received:
    9,805
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Naw. I can acquire machine guns in two or three ways if I wanted to. They are not prohibited. I could build my own machine guns if I wanted to. They are regulated, right or wrong, not prohibited.

    You not owning nukes was a joke. Hence the smiley face. Knock yourself out. Build one, buy one, I won’t try and stop you. I won’t lose any sleep over it.

    If you know of a law prohibiting ownership of nukes by US citizens please cite it. The country of Iran is a sovereign nation. It can build nukes if it wants to. I’m not subject to international law so why should I insist Iranians be?
     
    Reality likes this.
  23. Sahba*

    Sahba* Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Jan 29, 2019
    Messages:
    2,192
    Likes Received:
    2,584
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Female
    The preeminent consideration in drafting & subsequently ratifying the 2A in 1791 was explicitly designed for a safeguard against our very own gov., should they depart from the guiding constitutional rudiments. They were about as ardently textualist as it gets. There was no ambiguity of meaning, fresh on the heels of their own bloody struggle from the clutches tyrannical governance.

    There is a constitutional legitimacy to warranted civil disobedience, infact you could say that the entire constitution is an onerous and comprehensive rule book of 'can't does' for the fleeting gov. bureaucratic iteration of the day.
     
    Last edited: Sep 21, 2019
    roorooroo likes this.
  24. JET3534

    JET3534 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 7, 2014
    Messages:
    13,350
    Likes Received:
    11,517
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Firstly, for some things no one knows what they will do until they do it.

    Secondly, who in their right mind is going to state on the Internet anything other than their intent to observe full legal compliance to all laws
     
    Reality likes this.
  25. yguy

    yguy Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Feb 4, 2010
    Messages:
    18,423
    Likes Received:
    886
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Gender:
    Male
    Depends on whom you're talking about. If you refer to yourself and Golem, the answer is you don't resolve it, because he doesn't understand, or care to understand, what liberty is. If you refer to people who do respect liberty, we resolve it by politically disempowering those who do not.
    Of course it is, just like everything else in the Constitution.
     
    Reality likes this.

Share This Page