You are either not logged in or not registered with our community. Click here to register.
 
December 04, 2016, 08:35:37 AM

Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.
Did you miss your activation email?

Login with username, password and session length

Click here if you are having problems.
Default Wide Screen Beige Lilac Rainbow Black & Blue October Send us your theme!

Hark!  The Herald!
Holiday Issue 2016

Wiki Blogs Dicebot

Author Topic: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)  (Read 14722 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Online LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #275 on: October 18, 2015, 11:12:42 PM »
So the government is telling you that you don't have the right to free speech, but you're expecting a social campaign to somehow change this? Tell me how that's working out for citizens of Iran, the Russian Federation, etc.

  I'd expect a social campaign to go better than an armed revolt against the military (and as mentioned, if the military joined the people, an armed revolt would be unnecessary). Do you think citizens of the Russian Federation would serve themselves better with an armed revolt?

If it got to the point that it became wide spread? Yes. Right now Civil Forfeiture is a poorly written set of laws that need to be challenged legally.

  It has been challenged 1996, where the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional 5-4. It should be challenged again yes, but then it should have been ruled unconstitutional the first time.

No, I'm not interested in discussing it because its an endless argument that I've made it very clear that I'm not interested in having. There are basic rights set down by our Bill of Rights/Constitution. They are not on the table for negotiation as far as I'm concerned. If people want to discuss ways to limit gun violence through reasonable means (improved background checks, increasing the time and effort investment to acquire firearms, etc) I'm all for it. But 'amend the bill of rights to remove this whole pesky right to bear arms thing' isn't one that I'm going to entertain, period, so you might as well save your breath.

  We both know this won't happen, I just find it disturbing how some people seem to think armed revolution is justified in such circumstances, even when I specify that in this hypothetical scenario, the government was simply following the democratic will of the people.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #276 on: October 18, 2015, 11:26:54 PM »
And so begins again the circular argument. Well-regulated militia meaning what? The gun control advocates are going to complain that it should only be the government with guns. Anti-control advocates are going to say that every one should have them.

I was summarizing the positions of the justices in the Heller decision to answer your question.  If you think that's starting an argument on the meaning of militia, you've misread.   

As for your comments concerning what Cruikshank and Miller meant, folks do not need to rely on my or your interpretation of these cases.  They can read the words used by the Court itself.  The Cruikshank decision states:

Quote
The second and tenth counts are equally defective. The right there specified is that of 'bearing arms for a lawful purpose.' This 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 The City of New York v. Miln, 11 Pet. 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.

Miller states:

Quote
In the absence of any evidence tending to show that possession or use of a 'shotgun having a barrel of less than eighteen inches in length' at this time has some reasonable relationship to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, we cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees the right to keep and bear such an instrument.

...

The Constitution as originally adopted granted to the Congress power- 'To provide for calling forth the Militia to execute the Laws of the Union, suppress Insurrections and repel Invasions; To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress.' U.S.C.A.Const. art. 1, 8. With obvious purpose to assure the continuation and render possible the effectiveness of such forces the declaration and guarantee of the Second Amendment were made. It must be interpreted and applied with that end in view.

The Militia which the States were expected to maintain and train is set in contrast with Troops which they [307 U.S. 174, 179]   were forbidden to keep without the consent of Congress. The sentiment of the time strongly disfavored standing armies; the common view was that adequate defense of country and laws could be secured through the Militia- civilians primarily, soldiers on occasion.

To me, this is clear.  The notion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of private citizens to bear firearms is a modern, and recent, development.  Prior to 2008, the United States Supreme Court had consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to apply in the context of a Militia in the service of the United States government.


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #277 on: October 19, 2015, 12:00:08 AM »
  I'd expect a social campaign to go better than an armed revolt against the military (and as mentioned, if the military joined the people, an armed revolt would be unnecessary). Do you think citizens of the Russian Federation would serve themselves better with an armed revolt?

If they actually want full rights to free speech, etc? Maybe. The kicker with armed revolt is that you need enough of the populace engaged and outraged to reach critical mass for it to become an option. In the Russian Federation, for example, it's not really at that point. Its the minority that are being oppressed with the majority cheers them on. But of course, yay democracy right?

Quote
  It has been challenged 1996, where the Supreme Court upheld it as constitutional 5-4. It should be challenged again yes, but then it should have been ruled unconstitutional the first time.

No argument there.

Quote
  We both know this won't happen, I just find it disturbing how some people seem to think armed revolution is justified in such circumstances, even when I specify that in this hypothetical scenario, the government was simply following the democratic will of the people.

See my Russian Federation comment above. There are two large issues with the idea of the democratic will of the people somehow being this magical all knowing force.

First it assumes that the majority of people have the best interests of all in mind and are somehow, by the nature of their gestalt power, just.

Second it assumes that this is actually the will of the majority, and not the manufactured result of a corrupt system manipulated by extensive outside forces and determined only by the people that have either decided, been encouraged, or cajoled into voting.


To me, this is clear.  The notion that the Second Amendment guarantees the right of private citizens to bear firearms is a modern, and recent, development.  Prior to 2008, the United States Supreme Court had consistently interpreted the Second Amendment to apply in the context of a Militia in the service of the United States government.

My point is that both of those decisions were not cases brought to the Supreme Court to actually address the right to bear arms. Both cases were the result of a ruling being made for political reasons (Cruishank's ruling was made to protect others, Miller was made to specifically counter a known criminal's challenge). Did the Supreme Court rule that the Constitution didn't protect the right to bear arms in the Cruishank decision because that was the reasonable interpretation? Or did they rule that way to keep black votes disenfranchised and disarmed? Did they rule in the Miller case after a well considered argument on both sides? (They didn't because there was no counter-argument, the plaintiff didn't even show).

Rulings of the Supreme Court are always going to change with the generations. My thought is that at least the 2008 ruling was specifically addressing the question of the right to bear arms and not a politically charged side issue.

Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #278 on: October 19, 2015, 10:14:24 AM »
My point is that both of those decisions were not cases brought to the Supreme Court to actually address the right to bear arms. Both cases were the result of a ruling being made for political reasons (Cruishank's ruling was made to protect others, Miller was made to specifically counter a known criminal's challenge).

And my point is that your interpretation is just that.  Your interpretation.  Indeed, one can argue Heller was made for political reasons too.  How the question was presented does not change the fact that it was presented.  And no, even if one party was not present, that doesn't mean the U.S. Supreme Court just rolls over and does whatever the other side wants.

The Supreme Court--as its own words show--did analyze the scope of the Second Amendment and address the right to bear arms.  I've quoted those words.


Eh.  We're not covering new ground here.  Scalia and Stephens have argued/counterargued all of these points in Heller itself.  Scalia's starts on page 50.  Stephen's starts on 105.  The decision also goes on at length about the drafters' intent, what militia means, etc. 

Anyone following this thread can read Heller, Cruikshank and Miller for themselves and decide what the Supreme Court held or did not hold.  You and I are probably best off agreeing to respect the other person's position and moving on.

« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 12:44:54 PM by Cycle »

Online LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #279 on: October 19, 2015, 12:50:59 PM »
First it assumes that the majority of people have the best interests of all in mind and are somehow, by the nature of their gestalt power, just.

  No it doesn't. It assumes that following the will of the majority of the people is the best form of government we have. If you have a superior model, I'm all ears.

Second it assumes that this is actually the will of the majority, and not the manufactured result of a corrupt system manipulated by extensive outside forces and determined only by the people that have either decided, been encouraged, or cajoled into voting.

  Yes it does, and I'm sure plenty people who oppose any decision made by the Supreme Court ever believe the Justices were acting on such a manufactured majority. Fighting what you believe in even when the majority of the country is against you is an admirable move, for dedication is not for ethics. Advocating armed revolt because you believe the democratic will of the people has been subverted or cajoled is by contrast a very dangerous stance.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #280 on: October 19, 2015, 06:54:58 PM »
getting back into it I suppose the thing I dislike more than any other in this debate is the NRA.
I assume most people here already know most of their money comes from large scale weapons manufacturers not "outdoor sportsmen" So I'll skip the details on that gripe and get into the meat.

What I wanted to bring up is their most recent proposal to arm all teachers and students across the country, at the expense of the schools or local government of course.

The NRA seems to have nothing good to bring to this conversation anymore, they just seem to scream "OH NOEZ LIBURLS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! Vote NRA canadates 2016"  I'm a bit tired of it.

Offline eBadger

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #281 on: October 19, 2015, 06:59:49 PM »
The NRA seems to have nothing good to bring to this conversation anymore, they just seem to scream "OH NOEZ LIBURLS WANT TO TAKE YOUR GUNS! Vote NRA canadates 2016"  I'm a bit tired of it.

*Nods* But again, they're a direct counter to the extreme left on this.  Every time someone says Ban, another NRA member gets their plaid jacket and gun rack. 

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #282 on: October 19, 2015, 07:10:07 PM »
I would honestly be more okay with putting up metal detectors and security guards than trying to arm teachers.  Why?  Because teachers have enough to deal with, never mind adding on the (hopefully) required training and practice required to get someone to a carry-ready status (let alone full concealed-carry).  On top of that, there are some teachers who very likely wouldn't qualify, simply on a physiological level:  older teachers, those with visual impairments - and then there are some who simply wouldn't want to be armed.  Would having a CCW permit become a job requirement for becoming a teacher?  Would the lack of one be seen as a reason to remove/not hire a teacher?

Putting the financial burden on the school system is another red flag for me.  I've seen first hand how badly funds are disbursed through the state education budget (charter schools get theirs first and without delay, while the public schools have to request funds).  How much do you want to bet that the schools in the most 'dangerous' areas (read, 'low-income, Title I, urban districts') would have to cut into their educational resources to afford permits/training/guns?

Offline Zillah

  • Your kinky little sweetheart
  • On Hiatus
  • Seducer
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: Down in the West Village
  • Gender: Female
  • The capital of Montana is not "Hannah"
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #283 on: October 19, 2015, 07:17:12 PM »
And the first time a teacher legally carrying a gun makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person, what's going to happen?

Seriously, we want to add that to a teacher's responsibilities?


Offline Cycle

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #284 on: October 19, 2015, 07:38:47 PM »
And the first time a teacher legally carrying a gun makes a bad decision and shoots the wrong person, what's going to happen?




Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #285 on: October 19, 2015, 07:49:39 PM »
  No it doesn't. It assumes that following the will of the majority of the people is the best form of government we have. If you have a superior model, I'm all ears.

As the famous Churchhill quote goes 'Democracy is the worst form of government, except for all the others.'

The majority a hundred years ago thought homosexuality should be a crime. A century before that the majority believed that people should be property. These things changed over time, but they rarely changed quietly. Everyone has to decide what laws they will and will not follow. And to decide when those laws reach the point that they must be resisted violence.

Quote
  Yes it does, and I'm sure plenty people who oppose any decision made by the Supreme Court ever believe the Justices were acting on such a manufactured majority. Fighting what you believe in even when the majority of the country is against you is an admirable move, for dedication is not for ethics. Advocating armed revolt because you believe the democratic will of the people has been subverted or cajoled is by contrast a very dangerous stance.

That's kind of the point, though, of personal freedom and personal choice. The system we have is broken. The question becomes can it be fixed or is it going to continue to degrade until drastic action does become necessary? And if things do get bad... personally I have no interest in being unarmed for such an eventuality.

I would honestly be more okay with putting up metal detectors and security guards than trying to arm teachers.  Why?  Because teachers have enough to deal with, never mind adding on the (hopefully) required training and practice required to get someone to a carry-ready status (let alone full concealed-carry).  On top of that, there are some teachers who very likely wouldn't qualify, simply on a physiological level:  older teachers, those with visual impairments - and then there are some who simply wouldn't want to be armed.  Would having a CCW permit become a job requirement for becoming a teacher?  Would the lack of one be seen as a reason to remove/not hire a teacher?

Putting the financial burden on the school system is another red flag for me.  I've seen first hand how badly funds are disbursed through the state education budget (charter schools get theirs first and without delay, while the public schools have to request funds).  How much do you want to bet that the schools in the most 'dangerous' areas (read, 'low-income, Title I, urban districts') would have to cut into their educational resources to afford permits/training/guns?

Mandating that teachers carry guns is definitely not a necessary or even desirable step. What I do think, however, should be legal is that a teacher that wants to carry a weapon in the class room would have to undergo training and evaluation. Something akin to what is required of armed security licenses in most states.

Otherwise if you want to make actual 'gun free' zones then the only option to actually enforce that is to install full metal detectors and armed security just like a government building. Which in turn creates significant costs.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 07:59:37 PM by Tairis »

Online LisztesFerenc

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #286 on: October 19, 2015, 08:05:08 PM »
That's kind of the point, though, of personal freedom and personal choice. The system we have is broken. The question becomes can it be fixed or is it going to continue to degrade until drastic action does become necessary? And if things do get bad... personally I have no interest in being unarmed for such an eventuality.

  Which would be fine, if no one ever died from US gun culture, but they do. So you are paying with human lives now, to be prepared for what might happen in the future. But maybe not in your life time. Or maybe it won't even happen.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #287 on: October 19, 2015, 08:06:07 PM »
*Nods* But again, they're a direct counter to the extreme left on this.  Every time someone says Ban, another NRA member gets their plaid jacket and gun rack.

There's the trick, the extreme left (as in actual extremist, not what fox news calls extremist... which is basically anything left of Regan) has basically no chance of accomplishing a firearm ban. Logistically and Politically it's impossible.
I know a few guys who actually quit the NRA over this, they don't care about hunting, or hunters, just guns. I'm just... fucking sick of being shouted down by the same slogans and never making any progress.
*shakes head*

At least most people on the "left" of the conversation are willing to sit down and have a serious talk about some sort of solution without shutting me down... yet...

I'm at a loss as to why has the NRA become such poison to the debate. it only hurts their cause in the long run.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 08:23:10 PM by Ironwolf85 »

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #288 on: October 19, 2015, 08:17:55 PM »
Money. About half of their monthly publication is advertisements and catalogues for gun paraphernalia, plus online ad revenue, sponsorships, etc. - and membership fees as well. If they dared to drift towards the center, it could be financially catastrophic.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #289 on: October 19, 2015, 08:25:26 PM »
Money. About half of their monthly publication is advertisements and catalogs for gun paraphernalia, plus online ad revenue, sponsorships, etc. - and membership fees as well. If they dared to drift towards the center, it could be financially catastrophic.

So basically they're howling at the dawn to prevent the sun from rising because doing otherwise would be financially catastrophic?

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #290 on: October 19, 2015, 08:38:42 PM »
Like almost every political organization the NRA is simply a vessel for pushing special interests, in this case firearm manufacturers that are worried that any restricts will harm their profits.

Offline TheGlyphstone

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #291 on: October 19, 2015, 08:53:01 PM »
So basically they're howling at the dawn to prevent the sun from rising because doing otherwise would be financially catastrophic?

That's a somewhat provocative way of putting it, but I guess? It's sound financial sense, regardless of how inevitable the outcome is. The longer they hold their line, the longer they can keep raking in that cash.
« Last Edit: October 19, 2015, 08:55:50 PM by TheGlyphstone »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #292 on: October 19, 2015, 09:16:38 PM »
At least most people on the "left" of the conversation are willing to sit down and have a serious talk about some sort of solution without shutting me down... yet...

I would much rather talk and sort out some kind of solution.  Shutting people down doesn't solve anything.

Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #293 on: October 19, 2015, 10:10:39 PM »
There are plenty of fanatics on both sides. Try talking to people from the Brady campaign. It's like talking to PETA.

Which is the point I made the first time around in this thread. We can have this discussion until we are blue in the face. But it's irrelevant because our politicians are incapable of compromise anymore as they go to further and further extremes to pander to their power bases. Which is only exacerbated by our media empire that only wants to focus on whatever candidates are in their pockets and get them more ratings.

No matter what you put forward, you're going to get a rabid backlash against it based on whatever side you're betting against. If you propose universal background checks the Republicans will snap like rabid dogs parroting the NRA's 'The liberals want to take your guns' spiel. By the same virtue if you implemented something like I proposed above (allowing teachers to take an armed security class to carry their personal weapon at school) you'd have the Democrats gnashing their teeth and spewing the Brady Campaign's nonsense and talking about how they're just trying to curtail violence (because hint hint if you don't vote for them the crazy Republicans are going to give missile launchers too psychopaths and let them goto your schools!).

The only way you're going to get real action is if, by some miracle, you get a genuine moderate into the White House that decides to make their stamp on history by executive ordering something into existence that then forces both sides to compromise.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #294 on: October 20, 2015, 06:52:01 AM »
one can hope.

still, I suppose one of the reasons I'm pissed at the NRA is it treats weaponry that should be respected as a pornographic toy. >.>

A friend once told me blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for making you fat.

I've thought about it and it seems people are screaming about the restriction of/freedom of spoons, when what we all really want is for people to stop using those spoons to eat mayo deep fried in butter topped with sugar frosted sprinkles.
« Last Edit: October 20, 2015, 06:57:46 AM by Ironwolf85 »

Offline Oniya

  • StoreHouse of Useless Trivia
  • Oracle
  • Carnite
  • *
  • Join Date: Sep 2008
  • Location: Just bouncing through. Hi! City of Roses, Pennsylvania
  • Gender: Female
  • One bad Motokifuka. Also cute and FLUFFY!
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 3
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #295 on: October 20, 2015, 08:06:14 AM »
A friend once told me blaming guns for violence is like blaming spoons for making you fat.

An amusing comeback that I've seen for that line:  I'll believe that when a man with a spoon runs into a classroom and makes everyone in there obese.

Offline Cycle


Offline Cycle


Offline Tairis

Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #298 on: October 26, 2015, 10:29:22 PM »
I find this both the height of irony and the perfect example of why no progress is going to ever get made:

http://www.slate.com/articles/news_and_politics/politics/2015/10/hillary_clinton_is_smearing_bernie_sanders_as_a_sexist_it_s_an_insult_to.html

Basically Bernie Sanders has stated exactly what we've said in this thread: two sides screaming at each other is never going to accomplish anything and unless people are willing to compromise on what they can agree on nothing will get done.

Hillary's response to this? Try and spin it to imply that Bernie Sanders is sexist because he's implying that a woman is 'yelling' if she states an opinion and that she of course 'won't be silenced'.

Disgusting. The perfect example of American politics in motion. Care about making real change, actually preventing violence, helping the people you claim to be doing this for? Nah, lie, twist, and misrepresent whatever you have to do to get elected. That's the American way.

Offline Ironwolf85

  • Eletronic Scribe of naughty things.
  • Lord
  • Enchanter
  • *
  • Join Date: May 2010
  • Location: New England Somewhere I won't tell you
  • Gender: Male
  • Here to have fun, Role play, and maybe get laid
  • My Role Play Preferences
  • View My Rolls
  • Referrals: 0
Re: The Virginia Shooting, Gun Rights, and Revolutions (Split from News thread)
« Reply #299 on: October 28, 2015, 10:28:04 PM »
*FACEDESK*
*FACEDESK*
*FACEDESK*
*FACEDESK*
my face is going to hurt before this is over
*FACEDESK*