Skip to content

Politics. The feel in your country.

1503504506508509635

Comments

  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    edited March 2018
    @Ammar: If a statistic is not correct, let us assume that it was an honest mistake instead of a lie. I'm sure many of the frequent participants in this thread have accidentally posted something that turned out not to be true. There is no need to assume sinister motives here.
    MathsorcererbooinyoureyesZaghoul
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited March 2018
    So it's pretty sad that people read real fake news websites and they accept made up stuff and propaganda as fact. Maybe people check ten sites and they all reinforce the same fake stuff so it seems real.

    It's a bad cycle of misinformation. People let those "facts" color their worldview and their interactions with others. As an example, SorcererVictor says he's not American so he does not have a full picture of what is happening in America. He's latched on to some right wing conspiracy sites that hopefully most people actually from America can see right through. Unfortunately he's going out and repeating with conviction the stuff he's read on these sites and possibly convincing some people of stuff that he really believes but is not true. Fake facts, real belief.
    ThacoBellProont
  • AmmarAmmar Member Posts: 1,295

    @Ammar: If a statistic is not correct, let us assume that it was an honest mistake instead of a lie. I'm sure many of the frequent participants in this thread have accidentally posted something that turned out not to be true. There is no need to assume sinister motives here.

    I allowed for it being an honest mistake, that is the willful ignorance part. The willful part is taking what is obviously a propaganda meme and taking it at face value without even trying to verify it first. It takes 3 minutes to debunk that claim.

    If you look at my previous posts you can see that I usually do not correct to false info in this relatively harsh way as I start by assuming that the other party is open minded and arguing in good faith, e.g. see the printing press thing a few post back.

    But in this case it has become a consistent pattern of behavior. And we all waste our time by pretending otherwise and not calling a spade a spade instead of enabling. If and when I see evidence of good faith and making an effort, I will be extremely happy to re-evaluate. And I will leave it at that in order to not further detail this discussion.
    FinneousPJThacoBellsmeagolheartProont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    deltago said:

    That's because the "Fake News" tag worked.

    If news outlets fought back instead, suing Trump for defamation the first time he uttered the phrase towards them, we wouldn't be in this predicament.

    Aside form the fact that what he said does not amount to defamation, news companies have an interest in a strong Free Speech framework in the United States. It sets a bad precedent for newspapers to start suing people for expressing their opinions, however misguided.
    Proont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164

    International homicide rates; you may sort by per capita rate or by total count. If you sort by per capita rate, the United States is 94th and if you sort by total count it winds up being 8th. Either way, that meme--eye candy notwithstanding--is demonstrably incorrect. The most murderous U. S. cities are, in descending order sorted by rate per 100,000, St. Louis, Baltimore, San Juan, New Orleans, and Detroit. Statistics for more United States cities may be found here but I am pretty certain they are pulling their data directly from the FBI's crime statistics portal, which is a very handy tool to have (I keep that url in a "politics research" text file for ease of use). The data is complete up through calendar year 2016--they are still crunching 2017 numbers. Table 12 will break down homicides by weapon type.

    I think this demonstrates the cultural divide on guns. For people who live in rural areas, their experience consists of all their neighbors and friends owning multiple firearms and gun murders being a rarity. For those who live in cities, their experience is that the only people who own guns are criminals.
    semiticgoddessMathsorcererProont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    joluv said:

    Let's not post memes with made-up numbers here.

    In general, I really dislike when people try to make political arguments using memes.

    Unless they are Jeb Bush clapping memes (of which I've made far too many)

    Balrog99Proont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164


    No crime without victim should be punished

    This is an interesting statement that I've seen so many liberals and libertarians make. I used to buy into it myself, but then I realized that almost no one (save for some libertarians) who claims to follow this principle actually does so in practice.

    Where I've arrived is that I believe there are some actions that should be criminalized if they have eminently foreseeable downstream consequences. I think that selling certain weapons can qualify under this framework.
    Balrog99semiticgoddessProont
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137

    Jeb Bush clapping memes (of which I've made far too many)

    I get a real kick out of reading your posts in Ted Cruz's voice.
    Proont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    So the NY Times and others are reporting that Trump is preparing to announce tariffs on Chinese imports allegedly to punish them for intellectual property theft.

    The chamber of commerce says these tariffs will have a devastating effect on the US economy. That sounds like a challenge so Trump will probably do it right. Moar trade wars?

    https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa-trade/chamber-of-commerce-warns-trump-against-china-tariffs-idUSKCN1GR29G
    Proont
  • SorcererV1ct0rSorcererV1ct0r Member Posts: 2,176

    International homicide rates; you may sort by per capita rate or by total count. If you sort by per capita rate, the United States is 94th and if you sort by total count it winds up being 8th. Either way, that meme--eye candy notwithstanding--is demonstrably incorrect. The most murderous U. S. cities are, in descending order sorted by rate per 100,000, St. Louis, Baltimore, San Juan, New Orleans, and Detroit. Statistics for more United States cities may be found here but I am pretty certain they are pulling their data directly from the FBI's crime statistics portal, which is a very handy tool to have (I keep that url in a "politics research" text file for ease of use). The data is complete up through calendar year 2016--they are still crunching 2017 numbers. Table 12 will break down homicides by weapon type.

    Ironically most USA states doesn't have even 10 homicides with rifles/year. How many rifles exist in USA?

    Also, compare Nevada and California criminality in USA.

    California - 1,368 homicides with guns
    Nevada - 209 total homicides and only 141 homicides with guns

    There are 9,7x more homicides in California than in nevada according yo your link https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12

    Also note that handguns kill more than rifles, so why ban """assault""" rifles?
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2018

    International homicide rates; you may sort by per capita rate or by total count. If you sort by per capita rate, the United States is 94th and if you sort by total count it winds up being 8th. Either way, that meme--eye candy notwithstanding--is demonstrably incorrect. The most murderous U. S. cities are, in descending order sorted by rate per 100,000, St. Louis, Baltimore, San Juan, New Orleans, and Detroit. Statistics for more United States cities may be found here but I am pretty certain they are pulling their data directly from the FBI's crime statistics portal, which is a very handy tool to have (I keep that url in a "politics research" text file for ease of use). The data is complete up through calendar year 2016--they are still crunching 2017 numbers. Table 12 will break down homicides by weapon type.

    Ironically most USA states doesn't have even 10 homicides with rifles/year. How many rifles exist in USA?

    Also, compare Nevada and California criminality in USA.

    California - 1,368 homicides with guns
    Nevada - 209 total homicides and only 141 homicides with guns

    There are 9,7x more homicides in California than in nevada according yo your link https://ucr.fbi.gov/crime-in-the-u.s/2016/crime-in-the-u.s.-2016/tables/table-12

    Also note that handguns kill more than rifles, so why ban """assault""" rifles?
    The population of California is 10x larger than that of Nevada, for starters. So even with your stats, they basically have the EXACT same gun homicide rate based on population.
    Proont
  • semiticgoddesssemiticgoddess Member Posts: 14,903
    The logic of banning assault rifles is that it is optimized for killing large numbers of human beings, while a regular rifle is suited for hunting game. Usually, people who kill people with guns use either handguns or, in the case of mass shootings, automatic or semi-automatic weapons. You don't usually murder someone with a basic hunting rifle for the same reason you don't murder someone with a shotgun: because a handgun is much lighter, and an automatic weapon is much more deadly.
    booinyoureyesGrond0Proont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2018
    You know, with this whole gun debate continuing to rage, we can't read the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution, or change Supreme Court rulings. But what we CAN do is look at the actual definitions of the key words in the 2nd Amendment which are "militia" and (most importantly ) "arms". Definitions are taken from the Oxford dictionary, because I am a liberal snob.

    First, "militia", which is a "A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". So the opening salvo of the Second Amendment is clearly talking about what was a key component of the Revolutionary War against the British. This comes before anything else is mentioned.

    Now we move on the word arms. First off, the FIRST definition of arms in this context is "Weapons or armaments". You will notice it says nothing about guns. It applies to ALL weapons, from a knife, to the samurai sword from our favorite story from yesterday, to grenade launchers, to nuclear bombs and tanks. ALL of those things are weapons, and thus, by strict definition, "arms". Yet I'm fairly certain no one is arguing for citizens to be able to carry around suitcase bombs or rocket launchers or tanks, or even have the ability to own them. If this particular portion of the Amendment is what you hang your hat on to insist on an absolute right to firearms, it only stands to reason that you would ALSO believe in regular citizens having legal access to ALL forms of weaponry imaginable, because that is what "arms" are.

    But that is not the only definition of the word "arms". The second one is far more telling, especially when taken in context with the definition of the word "militia". The other definition is "Distinctive emblems or devices originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries". In this case, the term "bear arms" simply means designating and representing your country by some sort of insignia while going into battle. And given the context of the first part of the Second Amendment, it's pretty much impossible to toss out at least the slight possibility this second definition of the word "arms" meant as part of the intention. This line of thought makes even more sense when you take into consideration that people like James Madison himself had a outright fear of a standing peacetime army and what that meant for the prospects of a free country:

    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

    There was clearly a desire among some of those who wrote the Constitution to have nothing like the American Armed Forces we have today, but instead to basically have what could only be called a "call to arms" among the populace if the need arose. Now, clearly this would require those citizens having weaponry. But none of this is even remotely applicable anymore. The cat has been out of the bag on the standing peacetime army for well over a 100 years. We have been in Madison's state of perpetual warfare since at least World War II, and arguably World War I. At least part of what was feared would happen is already so far in the rear-view mirror we can't even see it anymore.
    semiticgoddessGrond0Proont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    Stormy Daniels may face more than $20 million in damages for violating a "hush agreement" that requires her to remain silent about an affair she alleges she had with President Donald Trump in 2006 and 2007.

    “The fact that a sitting president is pursuing over $20 million in bogus ‘damages’ against a private citizen, who is only trying to tell the public what really happened, is truly remarkable” Michael Avenatti, Daniels’s lawyer, said in an emailed statement.

    And Trump's lawyers have moved the case out of state court into Federal Court. Where the President appoints the judges. Seems legit right?

    https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2018-03-16/trump-moves-stormy-daniels-lawsuit-to-federal-court
    Proont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367

    The logic of banning assault rifles is that it is optimized for killing large numbers of human beings, while a regular rifle is suited for hunting game. Usually, people who kill people with guns use either handguns or, in the case of mass shootings, automatic or semi-automatic weapons. You don't usually murder someone with a basic hunting rifle for the same reason you don't murder someone with a shotgun: because a handgun is much lighter, and an automatic weapon is much more deadly.

    The weird thing is that if I actually 'wanted' to get away with a murder, a hunting rifle would be the perfect tool. With a scope and a bit of practice, you can pick somebody off from hundreds of yards away with little chance of anybody catching you. You could likely kill hundreds of people if you were careful and spread your assassinations around. I think it's a damn good thing that most of these nutcases don't have any brains to speak of...
    semiticgoddessProont
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963
    edited March 2018
    Andrew McCabe, registered Republican who told Trump he didn't vote for him, was fired today two days before he was scheduled to retire and receive full benefits. The is the epitome of what is known as 'a dick move'.

    McCabe leaked damaging information about HILLARY CLINTON (llolwhut) that benefited Donald Trump greatly during the election.

    "Mr. McCabe pushed back on the notion that he had tried to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation. To the contrary, the person described a tense conversation with the Justice Department in which Mr. McCabe insisted his agents had the authority to keep investigating.

    The article (published by the Wall Street Journal) was a negative one for the Clinton campaign — not Mr. Trump. It was published just days before the election, after the F.B.I. reopened its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email practices. The article, including the F.B.I. disclosures, made it clear that some agents saw evidence of wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation that was worth investigating."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/us/politics/justice-dept-andrew-mccabe.html

    So the guy that leaked just before the election that the case against Clinton was not closed. He swayed a lot of people's minds who were fed up with the whole clinton email stuff. He greatly helped Trump get elected and his reward is that he has been fired and Trump and Sessions are going to spin it some kind of way something something leaked against Trump just watch.

    EDIT:
    "In a statement released late Friday, Mr. Sessions said that Mr. McCabe had shown a lack of candor under oath on multiple occasions.

    “The F.B.I. expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and accountability,” he said. “I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.” "

    Lol that's rich coming from Jeff Sessions who has notoriously selective memory during his testimony under oath.
    ThacoBellProont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2018
    Based on this story, what I'm seeing here is extremely flimsy, and McCabe's explanation is at least a 50/50 proposition as to being the truth. I think we are going to be hearing alot more from Andrew McCabe:

    https://www.cnn.com/2018/03/16/politics/mccabe-fbi-firing/index.html

    I'm going to post McCabe's full statement here, as I think he absolutely deserves to be heard on this issue while his credibility is being attacked:
    Proont
  • Balrog99Balrog99 Member Posts: 7,367
    edited March 2018

    We haven't seen the report yet, so it is I suppose possible that McCabe did do something wrong in regards to agency procedure or conduct. But the guy voluntarily stepped aside months ago and was (as far as I remember) just using his vacation time. And anyone who thinks Trump ordering Sessions to fire him less than 48 hours before his retirement benefits kick in isn't purposeful is deluding themselves as to just how much of a colossal and vindictive prick Donald Trump is. For the record, Andrew McCabe has released a statement:


    And a statement for McCabe's lawyer:

    Definitely a dick move by Trump. Barring some kind of really bad judgment on McCabe's part I'm sure a judge will see things his way if he sues for his retirement benefits. Sucks that he has to take it to the courts though...

    It seems that Trump is declaring war on the intelligence community. The only thing that would make his stance justifiable is if there's ever solid proof that the FBI/CIA have been actively working against him. Considering the sheer amount of opposition from both Democrats and to a lesser extent (but not an insignificant extent by any means) Republicans, I'm not certain Trump is wrong. Hopefully time (and evidence) will tell.
    Proont
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2018

    You know, with this whole gun debate continuing to rage, we can't read the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution, or change Supreme Court rulings. But what we CAN do is look at the actual definitions of the key words in the 2nd Amendment which are "militia" and (most importantly ) "arms". Definitions are taken from the Oxford dictionary, because I am a liberal snob.

    First, "militia", which is a "A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". So the opening salvo of the Second Amendment is clearly talking about what was a key component of the Revolutionary War against the British. This comes before anything else is mentioned.

    Now we move on the word arms. First off, the FIRST definition of arms in this context is "Weapons or armaments". You will notice it says nothing about guns. It applies to ALL weapons, from a knife, to the samurai sword from our favorite story from yesterday, to grenade launchers, to nuclear bombs and tanks. ALL of those things are weapons, and thus, by strict definition, "arms". Yet I'm fairly certain no one is arguing for citizens to be able to carry around suitcase bombs or rocket launchers or tanks, or even have the ability to own them. If this particular portion of the Amendment is what you hang your hat on to insist on an absolute right to firearms, it only stands to reason that you would ALSO believe in regular citizens having legal access to ALL forms of weaponry imaginable, because that is what "arms" are.

    But that is not the only definition of the word "arms". The second one is far more telling, especially when taken in context with the definition of the word "militia". The other definition is "Distinctive emblems or devices originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries". In this case, the term "bear arms" simply means designating and representing your country by some sort of insignia while going into battle. And given the context of the first part of the Second Amendment, it's pretty much impossible to toss out at least the slight possibility this second definition of the word "arms" meant as part of the intention. This line of thought makes even more sense when you take into consideration that people like James Madison himself had a outright fear of a standing peacetime army and what that meant for the prospects of a free country:

    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

    There was clearly a desire among some of those who wrote the Constitution to have nothing like the American Armed Forces we have today, but instead to basically have what could only be called a "call to arms" among the populace if the need arose. Now, clearly this would require those citizens having weaponry. But none of this is even remotely applicable anymore. The cat has been out of the bag on the standing peacetime army for well over a 100 years. We have been in Madison's state of perpetual warfare since at least World War II, and arguably World War I. At least part of what was feared would happen is already so far in the rear-view mirror we can't even see it anymore.

    I agree with the general conclusion that the banning of certain weapons is allowable under the Second Amendment. I also agree that this is preferable.

    However, I find so much of this argument to be spurious at best.

    About the opening clause of the Second Amendment:
    Here is how the relevant portion of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State:. This is a prefatory clause. It announces a purpose. To say that it has a limiting effect on the remainder of the Amendment is absurd.

    Apply the same logic to the Constitution as a whole: the opening sentence goes "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...". No one believe this to be an obligation on the part of the state to be a "perfect union". It states a purpose for the content of the document, not a legal obligation.

    About the operative clause of the Second Amendment:
    But you don't even need to get to that, because the operative clause of the Second Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Its a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

    About a militia right vs an individual right:
    Now you mention the militia. I'll give you a quote from George Mason, the individual principally responsible for the Bill of Rights (more than Madison).
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    A few more points
    I'm not going to bother responding to the alternative definition of arms (as an emblem) because it makes no sense in any context.

    I will, however, disagree with you about nuclear bombs and tanks. You are simply wrong there. It is a right to bear arms. This means that it only applies to functional weapons that can be carried. You cannot *bear* a nuke or a tank. You propose a definition that is far broader than the text provides.

    Finally, not a single right in the Constitution is absolute. The Court has held that the principle text for almost every enumerated right is that they cannot be infringed by law unless the government shows 1. a compelling state interest and 2. that the law is narrowly tailored to promote that interest. There are limitations on the individual right to bear arms, just as there are on the right to free speech, like defamation and incitement (like the famous example of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater).
    In regards to the prefatory clause, you seem to just be citing Scalia's majority opinion on Heller. And as a member of the Federalist Society I wouldn't really expect anything less. But while a 5-4 Supreme Court decision does, in fact, set what our rules our, I'm sure you would vigorously disagree with some of the opinions Blackmun cited in his majority opinion on Roe. And I doubt you'd view your objections to them as spurious or absurd. Moreover, the second definition of "arms" isn't an alternative one, it is one of two actual definitions. And I brought it up because the post is about the absurd, obtuse wording of the 2nd Amendment in the first place.
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164

    Andrew McCabe, registered Republican who told Trump he didn't vote for him, was fired today two days before he was scheduled to retire and receive full benefits. The is the epitome of what is known as 'a dick move'.

    McCabe leaked damaging information about HILLARY CLINTON (llolwhut) that benefited Donald Trump greatly during the election.

    "Mr. McCabe pushed back on the notion that he had tried to shut down the Clinton Foundation investigation. To the contrary, the person described a tense conversation with the Justice Department in which Mr. McCabe insisted his agents had the authority to keep investigating.

    The article (published by the Wall Street Journal) was a negative one for the Clinton campaign — not Mr. Trump. It was published just days before the election, after the F.B.I. reopened its investigation into Mrs. Clinton’s email practices. The article, including the F.B.I. disclosures, made it clear that some agents saw evidence of wrongdoing by the Clinton Foundation that was worth investigating."

    https://www.nytimes.com/2018/03/01/us/politics/justice-dept-andrew-mccabe.html

    So the guy that leaked just before the election that the case against Clinton was not closed. He swayed a lot of people's minds who were fed up with the whole clinton email stuff. He greatly helped Trump get elected and his reward is that he has been fired and Trump and Sessions are going to spin it some kind of way something something leaked against Trump just watch.

    EDIT:
    "In a statement released late Friday, Mr. Sessions said that Mr. McCabe had shown a lack of candor under oath on multiple occasions.

    “The F.B.I. expects every employee to adhere to the highest standards of honesty, integrity and accountability,” he said. “I have terminated the employment of Andrew McCabe effective immediately.” "

    Lol that's rich coming from Jeff Sessions who has notoriously selective memory during his testimony under oath.

    @smeagolheart you are missing the point about the firing. This has nothing to do with Clinton, it has to do with Peter Srzok's texts about McCabe and the Russia investigation. Also, while you correctly note that McCabe is a registered Republican you also neglect to mention that his wife ran for the Virginia Senate as a Democrat and received multiple contributions from former Clinton chief campaign adviser and current VA governor Terry McAuliffe's groups.

    Here is the actual text of the... text (that sounds so strange)
    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (McCabe's) office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

    If the text does indeed mean what it sounds like it means, then I'll have no issue with McCabe being fired. Yet there are several other interpretations of the texts, and we'll have to see more information about what McCabe actually did. Hopefully more information will be released in the near future.
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164

    You know, with this whole gun debate continuing to rage, we can't read the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution, or change Supreme Court rulings. But what we CAN do is look at the actual definitions of the key words in the 2nd Amendment which are "militia" and (most importantly ) "arms". Definitions are taken from the Oxford dictionary, because I am a liberal snob.

    First, "militia", which is a "A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". So the opening salvo of the Second Amendment is clearly talking about what was a key component of the Revolutionary War against the British. This comes before anything else is mentioned.

    Now we move on the word arms. First off, the FIRST definition of arms in this context is "Weapons or armaments". You will notice it says nothing about guns. It applies to ALL weapons, from a knife, to the samurai sword from our favorite story from yesterday, to grenade launchers, to nuclear bombs and tanks. ALL of those things are weapons, and thus, by strict definition, "arms". Yet I'm fairly certain no one is arguing for citizens to be able to carry around suitcase bombs or rocket launchers or tanks, or even have the ability to own them. If this particular portion of the Amendment is what you hang your hat on to insist on an absolute right to firearms, it only stands to reason that you would ALSO believe in regular citizens having legal access to ALL forms of weaponry imaginable, because that is what "arms" are.

    But that is not the only definition of the word "arms". The second one is far more telling, especially when taken in context with the definition of the word "militia". The other definition is "Distinctive emblems or devices originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries". In this case, the term "bear arms" simply means designating and representing your country by some sort of insignia while going into battle. And given the context of the first part of the Second Amendment, it's pretty much impossible to toss out at least the slight possibility this second definition of the word "arms" meant as part of the intention. This line of thought makes even more sense when you take into consideration that people like James Madison himself had a outright fear of a standing peacetime army and what that meant for the prospects of a free country:

    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

    There was clearly a desire among some of those who wrote the Constitution to have nothing like the American Armed Forces we have today, but instead to basically have what could only be called a "call to arms" among the populace if the need arose. Now, clearly this would require those citizens having weaponry. But none of this is even remotely applicable anymore. The cat has been out of the bag on the standing peacetime army for well over a 100 years. We have been in Madison's state of perpetual warfare since at least World War II, and arguably World War I. At least part of what was feared would happen is already so far in the rear-view mirror we can't even see it anymore.

    I agree with the general conclusion that the banning of certain weapons is allowable under the Second Amendment. I also agree that this is preferable.

    However, I find so much of this argument to be spurious at best.

    About the opening clause of the Second Amendment:
    Here is how the relevant portion of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State:. This is a prefatory clause. It announces a purpose. To say that it has a limiting effect on the remainder of the Amendment is absurd.

    Apply the same logic to the Constitution as a whole: the opening sentence goes "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...". No one believe this to be an obligation on the part of the state to be a "perfect union". It states a purpose for the content of the document, not a legal obligation.

    About the operative clause of the Second Amendment:
    But you don't even need to get to that, because the operative clause of the Second Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Its a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

    About a militia right vs an individual right:
    Now you mention the militia. I'll give you a quote from George Mason, the individual principally responsible for the Bill of Rights (more than Madison).
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    A few more points
    I'm not going to bother responding to the alternative definition of arms (as an emblem) because it makes no sense in any context.

    I will, however, disagree with you about nuclear bombs and tanks. You are simply wrong there. It is a right to bear arms. This means that it only applies to functional weapons that can be carried. You cannot *bear* a nuke or a tank. You propose a definition that is far broader than the text provides.

    Finally, not a single right in the Constitution is absolute. The Court has held that the principle text for almost every enumerated right is that they cannot be infringed by law unless the government shows 1. a compelling state interest and 2. that the law is narrowly tailored to promote that interest. There are limitations on the individual right to bear arms, just as there are on the right to free speech, like defamation and incitement (like the famous example of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater).
    In regards to the prefatory clause, you seem to just be citing Scalia's majority opinion on Heller. And as a member of the Federalist Society I wouldn't really expect anything less. But while a 5-4 Supreme Court decision does, in fact, set what our rules our, I'm sure you would vigorously disagree with some of the opinions Blackmun cited in his majority opinion on Roe. And I doubt you'd view your objections to them as spurious or absurd.
    I'm citing the actual text. The prefatory clause simply states a purpose, which is why I refereed to the Constitution's preamble, which no one represents as actual binding law.

    Blackmun's opinion in Roe is indefensible even by modern liberal legal academia. Many left-wing legal commentators openly admit that his reasoning was flawed, but would arrive at the same conclusion through alternate means. This is just as many liberal and libertarian legal scholars (and I tend to agree with this) say that Obergefell was wrongly decided based on the reasoning, but would have arrived at the same conclusion through an exclusively Equal Protections analysis.
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2018

    You know, with this whole gun debate continuing to rage, we can't read the minds of the people who wrote the Constitution, or change Supreme Court rulings. But what we CAN do is look at the actual definitions of the key words in the 2nd Amendment which are "militia" and (most importantly ) "arms". Definitions are taken from the Oxford dictionary, because I am a liberal snob.

    First, "militia", which is a "A military force that is raised from the civil population to supplement a regular army in an emergency". So the opening salvo of the Second Amendment is clearly talking about what was a key component of the Revolutionary War against the British. This comes before anything else is mentioned.

    Now we move on the word arms. First off, the FIRST definition of arms in this context is "Weapons or armaments". You will notice it says nothing about guns. It applies to ALL weapons, from a knife, to the samurai sword from our favorite story from yesterday, to grenade launchers, to nuclear bombs and tanks. ALL of those things are weapons, and thus, by strict definition, "arms". Yet I'm fairly certain no one is arguing for citizens to be able to carry around suitcase bombs or rocket launchers or tanks, or even have the ability to own them. If this particular portion of the Amendment is what you hang your hat on to insist on an absolute right to firearms, it only stands to reason that you would ALSO believe in regular citizens having legal access to ALL forms of weaponry imaginable, because that is what "arms" are.

    But that is not the only definition of the word "arms". The second one is far more telling, especially when taken in context with the definition of the word "militia". The other definition is "Distinctive emblems or devices originally borne on shields in battle and now forming the heraldic insignia of families, corporations, or countries". In this case, the term "bear arms" simply means designating and representing your country by some sort of insignia while going into battle. And given the context of the first part of the Second Amendment, it's pretty much impossible to toss out at least the slight possibility this second definition of the word "arms" meant as part of the intention. This line of thought makes even more sense when you take into consideration that people like James Madison himself had a outright fear of a standing peacetime army and what that meant for the prospects of a free country:

    In time of actual war, great discretionary powers are constantly given to the Executive Magistrate. Constant apprehension of War, has the same tendency to render the head too large for the body. A standing military force, with an overgrown Executive will not long be safe companions to liberty. The means of defence against foreign danger, have been always the instruments of tyranny at home. Among the Romans it was a standing maxim to excite a war, whenever a revolt was apprehended. Throughout all Europe, the armies kept up under the pretext of defending, have enslaved the people.

    Of all the enemies to public liberty war is, perhaps, the most to be dreaded, because it comprises and develops the germ of every other. War is the parent of armies; from these proceed debts and taxes; and armies, and debts, and taxes are the known instruments for bringing the many under the domination of the few. In war, too, the discretionary power of the Executive is extended; its influence in dealing out offices, honors, and emoluments is multiplied: and all the means of seducing the minds, are added to those of subduing the force, of the people. The same malignant aspect in republicanism may be traced in the inequality of fortunes, and the opportunities of fraud, growing out of a state of war, and in the degeneracy of manners and of morals, engendered by both. No nation could preserve its freedom in the midst of continual warfare.

    There was clearly a desire among some of those who wrote the Constitution to have nothing like the American Armed Forces we have today, but instead to basically have what could only be called a "call to arms" among the populace if the need arose. Now, clearly this would require those citizens having weaponry. But none of this is even remotely applicable anymore. The cat has been out of the bag on the standing peacetime army for well over a 100 years. We have been in Madison's state of perpetual warfare since at least World War II, and arguably World War I. At least part of what was feared would happen is already so far in the rear-view mirror we can't even see it anymore.

    I agree with the general conclusion that the banning of certain weapons is allowable under the Second Amendment. I also agree that this is preferable.

    However, I find so much of this argument to be spurious at best.

    About the opening clause of the Second Amendment:
    Here is how the relevant portion of the Second Amendment reads: "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State:. This is a prefatory clause. It announces a purpose. To say that it has a limiting effect on the remainder of the Amendment is absurd.

    Apply the same logic to the Constitution as a whole: the opening sentence goes "We the People of the United States, in Order to form a more perfect Union...". No one believe this to be an obligation on the part of the state to be a "perfect union". It states a purpose for the content of the document, not a legal obligation.

    About the operative clause of the Second Amendment:
    But you don't even need to get to that, because the operative clause of the Second Amendment reads "the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed." Its a right of the people, not a right of the militia.

    About a militia right vs an individual right:
    Now you mention the militia. I'll give you a quote from George Mason, the individual principally responsible for the Bill of Rights (more than Madison).
    "I ask, sir, what is the militia? It is the whole people, except for a few public officials." — George Mason, in Debates in Virginia Convention on Ratification of the Constitution, Elliot, Vol. 3, June 16, 1788

    A few more points
    I'm not going to bother responding to the alternative definition of arms (as an emblem) because it makes no sense in any context.

    I will, however, disagree with you about nuclear bombs and tanks. You are simply wrong there. It is a right to bear arms. This means that it only applies to functional weapons that can be carried. You cannot *bear* a nuke or a tank. You propose a definition that is far broader than the text provides.

    Finally, not a single right in the Constitution is absolute. The Court has held that the principle text for almost every enumerated right is that they cannot be infringed by law unless the government shows 1. a compelling state interest and 2. that the law is narrowly tailored to promote that interest. There are limitations on the individual right to bear arms, just as there are on the right to free speech, like defamation and incitement (like the famous example of falsely shouting fire in a crowded theater).
    In regards to the prefatory clause, you seem to just be citing Scalia's majority opinion on Heller. And as a member of the Federalist Society I wouldn't really expect anything less. But while a 5-4 Supreme Court decision does, in fact, set what our rules our, I'm sure you would vigorously disagree with some of the opinions Blackmun cited in his majority opinion on Roe. And I doubt you'd view your objections to them as spurious or absurd.
    I'm citing the actual text. The prefatory clause simply states a purpose, which is why I refereed to the Constitution's preamble, which no one represents as actual binding law.

    Blackmun's opinion in Roe is indefensible even by modern liberal legal academia. Many left-wing legal commentators openly admit that his reasoning was flawed, but would arrive at the same conclusion through alternate means. This is just as many liberal and libertarian legal scholars (and I tend to agree with this) say that Obergefell was wrongly decided based on the reasoning, but would have arrived at the same conclusion through an exclusively Equal Protections analysis.
    I realize you are citing the text, but you seem to be operating under the assumption that Scalia's opinion on Heller is infallible and that Blackmun's on Roe is severely flawed, and I think it would be fairly hard for you to claim that isn't based mostly on your personal opinion regarding the two decisions and Justices. Which is perfectly fine. I simply object to the idea that one of them was handed down from Mount Sinai to Moses on stone tablets, and that the other one has no validity whatsoever. And I just got done reading a bunch of criticism of Blackmun's opinion. But that's the point, every one of those takes is an OPINION. For the record, I am not up for having an abortion argument this weekend, so I don't want to take this down that rabbit hole at this particular time. Which isn't to say other people can't......I think I'm gonna go play some DOOM.
  • joluvjoluv Member Posts: 2,137

    Here is the actual text of the... text (that sounds so strange)
    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (McCabe's) office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

    If the text does indeed mean what it sounds like it means, then I'll have no issue with McCabe being fired.

    You think he should be fired because... someone once told him that there was no way Trump would be elected? I haven't been following this story closely, but I don't understand this take at all.
    smeagolheart
  • jjstraka34jjstraka34 Member Posts: 9,850
    edited March 2018
    joluv said:

    Here is the actual text of the... text (that sounds so strange)
    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (McCabe's) office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

    If the text does indeed mean what it sounds like it means, then I'll have no issue with McCabe being fired.

    You think he should be fired because... someone once told him that there was no way Trump would be elected? I haven't been following this story closely, but I don't understand this take at all.
    We also to this day have NO context about any of those texts, because everything made public was selectively leaked by House Republicans. I'm old enough to remember when they supposedly proved a "secret society" was at work to take out Trump. You also don't make a move like this on 10pm on Friday night if you think the whole thing is above board. Trump, of course, just sent out a joyous tweet about it, still no realizing that EVERYTHING he tweets can eventually be used in legal proceedings.
  • smeagolheartsmeagolheart Member Posts: 7,963

    joluv said:

    Here is the actual text of the... text (that sounds so strange)
    “I want to believe the path you threw out for consideration in Andy’s (McCabe's) office—that there’s no way he gets elected—but I’m afraid we can’t take that risk. It’s like an insurance policy in the unlikely event you die before you’re 40…”

    If the text does indeed mean what it sounds like it means, then I'll have no issue with McCabe being fired.

    You think he should be fired because... someone once told him that there was no way Trump would be elected? I haven't been following this story closely, but I don't understand this take at all.
    We also to this day have NO context about any of those texts, because everything made public was selectively leaked by House Republicans. I'm old enough to remember when they supposedly proved a "secret society" was at work to take out Trump. You also don't make a move like this on 10pm on Friday night if you think the whole thing is above board. Trump, of course, just sent out a joyous tweet about it, still no realizing that EVERYTHING he tweets can eventually be used in legal proceedings.
    McCabes wife has nothing to do with it. Does Melania matter at all when judging Trumps actions? No. Why do you assume McCabes wife does? She ran as a Democrat but McCabe never converted and leaked damaging info about Clinton days before the election in a ridiculous move that should never have occurred the FBI is not supposed to act to influence elections! There are rules against that.

    There's no way Trumps firing of Comey and McCabe doesn't come up when Muellers findings on obstruction are revealed.

    McCabe, who has more credibility at this point than Trump and Sessions, says he was fired because of what he saw after Comey was fired. According to Trump himself coney was fired to relieve great stress from this Russia thing. One second hand tweet from a Peter Strok is not damming at all compared to the shady actions and constant lies of 45.
  • Grond0Grond0 Member Posts: 7,305

    I'm citing the actual text. The prefatory clause simply states a purpose, which is why I refereed to the Constitution's preamble, which no one represents as actual binding law.

    @booinyoureyes you make a good argument, but it is indeed only an opinion / argument and not a fact or obvious conclusion. @jjstraka34 referred to District of Columbia v. Heller 2008, which is the source of the current interpretation of the Second Amendment (that's been further supported by more recent cases in the Supreme Court as well). The verdict on that case supports your argument, though as noted the verdict was only a 5-4 majority.

    Prior to Heller the previous binding case goes all the way back to United States v. Miller in 1939. In that case the Supreme Court did interpret the 2nd Amendment in the way @jjstraka34 suggested, i.e. that the right to bear arms was in the context of a well regulated militia - under this interpretation the right to bear arms was intended to protect states rights and not individual ones. The recent change in judicial interpretation is just another example of how important courts are in making law.

    I also think it is quite conceivable that a future court decision could extend the meaning of the right to bear arms beyond what is carried. Collins English Dictionary defines the term as follows:
    You've already ruled out the historic British meaning, so if you accept the American definition the constitutional right could easily be extended to weapons you can equip (and if you look at the definition for that it goes well beyond what can be carried).
    jjstraka34Proont
  • booinyoureyesbooinyoureyes Member Posts: 6,164
    @Grond0 Thanks for your response! I have a lot to say about this, and will respond to this post in full when I get the chance (it is very late in my time zone right now and I have to head to bed). But just so we are clear, there are reasons I don not cite precedent to support my interpretation of the Second Amendment (or most other provisions). I'll go into more detail after a long night of zzz.
    Grond0
This discussion has been closed.