Wanted: Meaningful response backed by a sound argument

Discussion in 'Gun Control' started by TOG 6, Feb 18, 2021.

  1. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You are already on record as one that opposes our constitution. Now all you have to do is post a
    Meaningful response backed by a sound argument
     
  2. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes he did. But is this deja vu all over again? I think I have responded to this no less than 3 times. Or were you just trying your hand at a little bit of harassment?

    Maybe you thought that would compensate for your inability to respond to the arguments I made about the meaning of the 2nd A meant?

    Sorry, but it didn't work.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2021
  3. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    And by "meaningful" you mean one that would pass the Trump "don't believe your own eyes or your own ears" test? I'm not interested in doing that.

    I'm content with the fact that you had no rebuttal for the one I did send.
     
    Last edited: Feb 25, 2021
  4. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Meaningful would require a real benefit to society.

    Maybe I missed it. Which post was that?
     
  5. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Oh? Is THAT going to be your excuse? I see.... "I missed it". Pathetic excuse for lack of arguments. Maybe you should have stuck with your "lalalalala... I can't hear you" while-covering-eyes-and-ears, excuse.
     
  6. Doofenshmirtz

    Doofenshmirtz Well-Known Member Past Donor

    Joined:
    Jan 21, 2016
    Messages:
    28,023
    Likes Received:
    19,312
    Trophy Points:
    113
    None of your responses came close to meaningful and no argument came close to sound. That is likely why you had to result to reinterpreting the second amendment.

    It is normal to resort to dodging and weak insult attempts when one paints themselves into a corner as you did here.

    Will you be describing how outlawing private gun ownership benefits society today?
     
  7. Sammy9000

    Sammy9000 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2021
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    The Constitution gives Congress the power to raise an army, and by extension navy, air force, space force. It gives command to the President. This prevents the States and citizens from raising armies. States/citizens may not own weaponized aircraft, missiles, artillery, landmines,... those things necessary to beat another army.
    Under the 14A, section1, If a governor citizen can't have those weapons, no citizen may have them. Police citizens (militia) may not have them. Full auto machine guns were outlawed when police got tired of Clyde Barrow shooting belts of BAR 30-06 rounds through their cars.

    By reverse logic, any weapon police citizens may keep and bear, every citizen may keep and bear. We have equal privileges and protection of our laws. 14A, S1 shouldn't have been necessary; but some citizens thought segregation was natural and moral. They thought Condi Rice's father and his friends shouldn't be allowed to patrol their neighborhood with shotguns, protecting their families in the days when the boots sticking out from under a KKK sheet often identified a deputy sheriff (militia in which blacks were denied membership).

    The argument that militia means not all of 'the people' is specious. In 1A, the people may peaceably assemble. Therefore, the term 'the people' means unassembled INDIVIDUALS who may assemble, decline attendance, form some other assembly, stay home, go fishing, and change their minds at any time. Those are the same unassembled individuals in 2A, who may attend a militia assembly, or decline.
     
  8. BryanVa

    BryanVa Well-Known Member

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

    If no one objects I believe I will chime in now.

    Let me start with something I believe we can all agree upon.

    I believe we can all agree the creation of our Bill of Rights was not an intentional exercise in futility. Rather, I suspect we can all agree that the purpose of these amendments was twofold: 1. To recognize particular rights as fundamental to our concept of individual liberty; and 2. To protect these rights from the power of the federal government.

    Thus, it should follow that any interpretation of a right found in one of these amendments—if it wants to be taken seriously—must be able to meet a two-part test:

    1. It must define what the right is; and

    2. It must show how its placement into an Amendment works to restrain the power of the federal government to infringe upon that right.

    For example, we all agree that the activity we are engaging in here—free speech—is an important right, and that enshrining the “freedom of speech” in our 1st Amendment works to compel the government to recognize and respect this individual liberty interest.

    I’ve been away from this forum for a while, but the limited-to-the-militia interpretation of the 2nd A described in the quotes above has been around for a long time.

    This interpretation—although it was created before Heller—became the interpretation favored by the dissent in that case.

    The problem with the interpretation is this: In their rush to limit the “right of the people” found in the amendment to militia service the creators of this interpretation wound up with a right which does not exist. Their interpretation creates a right which protects nothing.

    And the Heller dissenters having gone down this blind alley found themselves unable to explain how their interpretation of the Amendment worked to protect anything from the power of the federal government.

    Now at the risk of engaging in prophecy I will predict, Golem, that you are unable to escape the dead end this interpretation has likewise led you into.

    My question is this: What is your answer to the second part of the test?

    Can you tell me how this militia-limited right which you say exists in the 2nd Amendment protects anything from the power of the federal government?

    I tell you that it protects nothing, and I will explain why this is so. But I understand your claim to have done a lot of your own research before you engaged in this topic, and I respect that. I want to see if your research had led you to recognize the fundamental flaw in this interpretation before I point it out.

    Are you willing to engage me on this topic?
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2021
    Sammy9000 likes this.
  9. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Prove this to be true.
    Cite / Copy / paste.
    We both know you will not, because you both know you know you cannot.
    As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
     
    Last edited: Feb 26, 2021
  10. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Either way, onus is on you to demonstrate your claim...
    And you cannot.
    As this is the basis for your premise, you premise fails, as do all of the claims you base on it.
    As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
     
  11. Sammy9000

    Sammy9000 Newly Registered

    Joined:
    Feb 25, 2021
    Messages:
    45
    Likes Received:
    51
    Trophy Points:
    18
    Gender:
    Male
    President Lincoln sent rebel troops home with their guns. Were they suddenly militia?
     
  12. Galileo

    Galileo Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 3, 2015
    Messages:
    2,860
    Likes Received:
    481
    Trophy Points:
    83
    So you're saying that the Militia Act of 1792 wasn't in compliance with the Second Amendment? It didn't require the militia to be well regulated? The "unorganized militia" isn't really a militia at all. You could sit around all day eating potato chips and watching TV and never engage in any militia activities and still be part of the "unorganized militia". But you don't care if the militia is well-regulated and in a position to defend the security of a free state. You don't care about that part of the Second Amendment. Most gun apologists are not very supportive of the Second Amendment. They want rights without responsibilities.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  13. mentor59

    mentor59 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Mar 6, 2019
    Messages:
    1,247
    Likes Received:
    539
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Galileo likes this.
  14. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I think there is some confusion. My argument is that the language in the 2nd A protects ONLY the "right to keep and bear arms". Which, in the mind of any average educated American at the time, evoked an association to a military-type scenario. And the reference to "a well regulated militia" indicates that this is what the framers had in mind.

    I am not interested in watering down my point by going into other considerations. But your argument seems to imply that if the 2nd A doesn't protect this "individual right" to own guns, it doesn't protect anything. Throwing in just a random "protection" somebody came up with after the fact, to fill in the apparent gap seems arbitrary. And it is incompatible with the language used. I would forward another possible and much more reasonable explanation.

    According to the Historian's Amicus Brief for the Heller case (https://www.nraila.org/heller/conamicusbriefs/07-290_amicus_historians.pdf), there was very little discussion about anything related to an "individual right" that you (or others) seem to be clinging to. And even those allusions generated very little interest and even less support. But something that appeared to draw much more concern was the possibility that the states would neglect support for their militias. So it would appear that a much more reasonable explanation is that the 2nd A was intended to protect the right of the people to form militias even if the States neglected them. At which point they would instead be "well regulated" by Congress according to what is stipulated in Clauses 15 and 16 of Article 1. So, according to this interpretation, while it doesn't protect the people from the Federal Government, it does protects them from neglect by the State Government. And I think this interpretation is further sustained by the fact that the language used to draft the 2nd A would then make complete sense. Which is my main point.

    Now, you seem to have been challenging my call to anybody who wishes to engage in a serious debate to do research. It looks like many people are surprised by the fact that I do research. Allow me to further clarify that this is because I do spend time researching what I post. Which, as my sig says, doesn't automatically mean I'm always right. But I do expect that your response will reflect your own research in respect to the point I made about the language of the 2nd A. In relation to how it was used at the time it was written.

    So I believe I have answered your question. I expect that you, in a similar way, answer mine. If you believe that the framers' intention was to "protect" some "individual right" to own weapons, why did they use military-related language? Why didn't they just write "...the right to own weapons shall not be infringed", or something to that effect? Why didn't they even bother to discuss language similar to that? Or, at least, like some State Constitutions do, add "and for personal protection"?

    Or something like what the minority Anti-Federalists to the Pennsylvania ratifying convention included in their dissent:

    “7. That the people have a right to bear arms for the defense of themselves and their own state, or for the purpose of killing game; and no law shall be passed for disarming the people or any of them, unless for crimes committed, or real danger of public injury from individuals"

    So if the "individual right" advocates were right, wouldn't something like that made it much clearer? So why did the framers approve only the language that would reference ONLY a military scenario?
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  15. 557

    557 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 7, 2018
    Messages:
    17,377
    Likes Received:
    9,812
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Yes, both are in agreement with the other. There is no conflict between the 1792 Acts and the 2A. It would be very odd if there was considering they were conceived, drafted, passed and ratified by essentially the same people over a period of months.
    The 2A does not require militia to be well regulated. It doesn’t even define the militia. The Militia Acts of 1792 addressed the “regulation” of the specific militia they described/formed (actually states retained partial rights of determining who actually actively participated in the militia. This practice continued down to modern local draft boards because the federal government has constitutionally always had to recognize state’s rights to some degree. There was never a time when all 17-45 year olds were “well regulated” under the Militia Acts. That was never the intent. If that had been the intent of the drafters of the Bill of Rights and the Acts, they would have mandated “regulation” of all 17-45 year olds in the 2A. There would have been no need for subsequent Acts. They also would have included language prohibiting private ownership of firearms by those not “regulated” including provisions for disarming 46 year old males.
    Absolutely. That’s the whole idea. Our country is founded on that very principle. :) The citizenry always retains the right to defend against threats foreign or domestic no matter how you feel about it or how much crime the societal norms you create facilitates.
    Can you quote me saying I don’t care? I would love for every militia aged person to be well armed and trained. But I recognize your right to not be if you don’t want to be. Would you like to be forced to shoot, drill, and participate in combat exercises?

    Again, to be clear, there is no language in the 2A mandating anyone, militia included, be well regulated. Sorry.
     
  16. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    The Militia Act of 1792 was not related to an exercise of the right to keep and bear arms - so, no.
    Congress says otherwise, as it created the classification under is Article 1$8:15 power to do so.
    Your opinion to the contrary does notmatter.
    Call your congressman and and have him pass a bill to revise the law that organizes the militia.
    The 2nd Amendment does not create or attach a militia-related responsibility of requirement to the exercise of right to keep and bear arms.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  17. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Demonstrate this to be true.
    Demonstrate this to be true.
    Cite / copy / paste their words to this effect.
    Translation:
    You know you cannot defend your position from points raised against it.
     
  18. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Either way, onus is on you to demonstrate your claim...
    ... to be true.
    And you cannot.
    As this is the basis for your premise, you premise fails, as do all of the claims you base on it.
    As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  19. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Prove this to be true.
    Cite / Copy / paste.
    We both know you will not, because you both know you know you cannot.
    As It took you a long time to research the validity of your arguments, why do you make statements you know cannot demonstrate to be true?
     
  20. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  21. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Again? You're fully aware of the fact you haven't done it once.
    Demonstrate how this paragraph proves your claim true.
    Do not forget the words --you-- put in quotes: ""military-style weapons".
    You made a claim - onus is on you to prove it true.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  22. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Don 't you have anything better to do than to ask again and again that I demonstrate what I have ALREADY demonstrated?

    Here!
    http://www.politicalforum.com/index...-sound-argument.585248/page-5#post-1072464462

    But I keep presenting arguments and evidence and you refuse to address them. Instead you just ask me again to repeat them. So, if you're going to address my arguments, address them already! If not, then you will have demonstrated that your request for a "meaningful response" was pure...[insert a word that is not allowed in this forum]. And that there is no need or purpose in me wasting my time with you anymore.
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  23. Golem

    Golem Well-Known Member Donor

    Joined:
    Feb 22, 2016
    Messages:
    42,520
    Likes Received:
    18,649
    Trophy Points:
    113
    Quoting my paragraph without addressing it is not a valid response. Despite the fact that you got stuck in a passing unimportant comment, you have my arguments. If you have some way to rebut them, go for it! Otherwise... It's obvious that you just want to waste our time. And I'm done with that.

    My real argument (that responded to your challenge on the OP) was about the text of the 2nd A and what it meant to any American with an average education at the time it was written.. It's what you wanted (or, at least you said you wanted). And you have yet to address it with anything more significant than "that's not true".

    So if you're ready to address the arguments I already made, go for it! If not,.... why would I waste my time with you any more than I already have?
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  24. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    You haven't demonstrated -any- of your claims to be true.
    You -claim- they are true, but when it comes to an actual, factual demonstration you have... nothing.
    Repeating a claim you have not, and can not, demonstrate to be true does not demonstrate anything to be true
    A claim you have not, and can not, demonstrate to be true
    A claim you have not, and can not, demonstrate to be true
    A claim you have not, and can not, demonstrate to be true
    A claim you have not, and can not, demonstrate to be true
    "Arguments" you cannot prove true and "evidence" that does not demonstrate your claims to be true.
    If this were true, you could clearly, concisely and soundly demonstrate your claims to be true, on demand, without exception
    You cannot.
    Thus, your claim is not true.
    Why do you make claims you know are not true?[/quote][/quote][/quote][/quote]
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021
  25. TOG 6

    TOG 6 Well-Known Member

    Joined:
    Oct 23, 2015
    Messages:
    47,848
    Likes Received:
    19,638
    Trophy Points:
    113
    I -did- address it.
    You made a claim - as you know, the onus is on you to prove it true.
    You provided a paragraph from Heller you think proves your claim true
    I asked you to Demonstrate how this paragraph proves your claim true.
    Do not forget the words --you-- put in quotes: ""military-style weapons".

    Well?
     
    Last edited: Feb 27, 2021

Share This Page