OMG Politics, I'm over it already.

[wagdog]

I'd be all for mandatory training and background checks. The problem is, I don't trust the gun control side to stop there. Historically, gun control has been a slippery slope- give an inch, they take a mile. Gun control advocates are very open about the fact that they're happy to accept reasonable restrictions on firearms ownership... as a stepping stone to their real goal, which is outright prohibition (you can even see examples of that in this very discussion). In that context, the NRA's hardline "not one step back" position makes some sense.



Rest assured, I'm well versed in the difference between "a" press, and "the" press. The point you seem to be missing is that tying the second amendment to the firearms technology of the time it was written makes as little sense as doing the same to the first amendment. Of course your first amendment rights apply to large scale electric printing presses, television and the internet- why do people think that your second amendment rights are specific to 18th century technology (as shown in the video you posted)?

That is the exact reason for the NRA's position.

I applaud people who come out and say "ban all guns" or even flamencology's misguided "the 2nd amendment should never have been there" thoughts; at least they're upfront about it. Wrong yes, but at least they're being honest about their intentions.

The argument that the founding fathers didn't envision auto loaders, hi-cap mags or current weapons is ludicrous as well. All of the other amendments have been interpreted with current technology of today (searches using heat sensor and IR technology, drug sniffing dogs, etc). Can you imagine if we applied the proposed restrictions on the the 2A to the 1st? YouTube comment sections would dry up over night. Sorry, you need to have permit to exercise your 1A rights, and clearly you're too stupid - yeah, that would go over well. You can have freedom of religion, but only if you pass a test - uh huh, that'll happen.

I don't think anyone disagrees that reducing violence is the goal.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

IOf course your first amendment rights apply to large scale electric printing presses, television and the internet- why do people think that your second amendment rights are specific to 18th century technology (as shown in the video you posted)?

I still do not get that point. If people think that, they need to re-visit basic civics class. So I don't really understand your analogy or point. My point in bringing up the 1st A earlier is that rights under the 1st A are individual to the person, as are 2nd A rights, and yet are restricted. Particularly in terms of time, manner and place. Content restrictions, or restrictions that are "chilling" to content, are less likely to be upheld. So therefore, the 2nd A could be restricted in some fashion, and of course already is in some respects. (Felons for example). If it is to say that just because the printing press is old does not mean the 1st A has to be re-written, then I understand your point, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion there. But the analogy made no sense to me.

 

[wagdog]

I still do not get that point. If people think that, they need to re-visit basic civics class. So I don't really understand your analogy or point. My point in bringing up the 1st A earlier is that rights under the 1st A are individual to the person, as are 2nd A rights, and yet are restricted. Particularly in terms of time, manner and place. Content restrictions, or restrictions that are "chilling" to content, are less likely to be upheld. So therefore, the 2nd A could be restricted in some fashion, and of course already is in some respects. (Felons for example). If it is to say that just because the printing press is old does not mean the 1st A has to be re-written, then I understand your point, and you are certainly entitled to your opinion there. But the analogy made no sense to me.

His point is that attempting to say that the 2A only envisioned people having access to muskets is analogous to saying the 1st only applied to the spoken word, printing press or the soapbox. The 1st also enumerates our right to freedom of religion; it doesn't say which religion(s). Likewise the 4th says we aren't subject to unreasonable search and seizure; that needs to be interpreted using current tech; the founding fathers probably didn't envision satellite and drone surveillance.

IMO, attempting to say that the weapons that existed at the time the 2A was ratified is disingenuous and dishonest.

As you said, there are time, manner and place restrictions on the 1st, as well as the 2nd.

 

[sunvalleylaw]

@wagdog , ok. I thought that was maybe what was meant. I still am not sure whether I agree with the point or not. From a legal analysis point of view, or a policy point of view. But now at least I understand the point.

 

[335clone]

This is just my opinion, but I believe that the NRA's unwillingness to back background checks and ban sales to people on the terror watch / no fly list is because they believe that much of their core base could be added to said list based upon association with the Cliven Bundy / Oregon Occupation / militia types. They pay lip service to the premise that " of course no terrorist should be sold weapons" yet will not support legislation to actually ban said sales due to a notion of "people put on the list accidentally" which to me means their major donors.

For the record I am a pro 2A Dem and EX NRA member. I saw the radical politicalization movement within the NRA 30+ years ago and severed ties for good. I have owned and fired numerous types of firearms, including illegal fully auto Uzi's ( Man, those are FUN to shoot ) but truthfully they have no business being available to people like me and you.

 

[Aahzz]

This is just my opinion, but I believe that the NRA's unwillingness to back background checks and ban sales to people on the terror watch / no fly list is because they believe that much of their core base could be added to said list based upon association with the Cliven Bundy / Oregon Occupation / militia types.

No, the problem with using the watch list is that it bypasses due process. The NRA has actually said that they'd support legislation to use the list if the problems with the list itself were fixed. Right now there's no telling what criteria are used to place someone on the list, and there's no process to get off the list. That's the tactic of a totalitarian regime, started by Bush, continued by Obama, with plenty of blame to both Republicans and Democrats.

I fully support a solution that has due process rights in pace myself, but do not support the current lists being used for anything, including flying. Fix the lists and then we can have a real conversation.

NRA official statement is here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

 

[jp_nyc]

No, the problem with using the watch list is that it bypasses due process. The NRA has actually said that they'd support legislation to use the list if the problems with the list itself were fixed.

I was an FBI contractor when the government was first trying to build the watch list and it was a train wreck of incompetence. It’s why I left IT and went back to school. But the conservative groups that pretend to care about national security don’t seem interested telling congress stop bowing down to crooked contractors and fix the decades-long clusterfuck that are terrorist watch lists, so they deserve to be bitten by them.

 

[mongooz]

I was an FBI contractor when the government was first trying to build the watch list and it was a train wreck of incompetence. It’s why I left IT and went back to school. But the conservative groups that pretend to care about national security don’t seem interested telling congress stop bowing down to crooked contractors and fix the decades-long clusterfuck that are terrorist watch lists, so they deserve to be bitten by them.

the problem with that statement is that WE get 'bitten' by them too.

 

[wagdog]

Any "secret" government lists without adequate civilian oversight and due process is prone to misuse and abuse. Again, politicizing this issue has prevented any meaningful action being taken on it.

NRA official statement is here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

Gee, that doesn't sound like what's being widely reported. What a shock.

 

[rhino]

This is another example of follow the money.

The NRA's job is to make sure gun manufactures keep making money. The discussion turned into Obama is a secret Muslim plotting to take a your guns because it sells more guns. The longer there's gridlock in the legislative branch, the more guns sold.

 

[Chad]

That is the exact reason for the NRA's position.

I applaud people who come out and say "ban all guns" or even flamencology's misguided "the 2nd amendment should never have been there" thoughts; at least they're upfront about it. Wrong yes, but at least they're being honest about their intentions.

The argument that the founding fathers didn't envision auto loaders, hi-cap mags or current weapons is ludicrous as well. All of the other amendments have been interpreted with current technology of today (searches using heat sensor and IR technology, drug sniffing dogs, etc). Can you imagine if we applied the proposed restrictions on the the 2A to the 1st? YouTube comment sections would dry up over night. Sorry, you need to have permit to exercise your 1A rights, and clearly you're too stupid - yeah, that would go over well. You can have freedom of religion, but only if you pass a test - uh huh, that'll happen.

I don't think anyone disagrees that reducing violence is the goal.

Yes because you can take YouTube comments into a theater and kill a dozen people in the blink of an eye.

So do slaves still count as 3/5 of a person? That is in the constitution.

Can you walk into a crowded building and yell "fire" without getting arrested?

Can a newspaper write a story saying you sell drugs to children and you don't, can you not sue them for damages and win?

If my religion calls for human sacrifice, can I do that?

Why not, it says so in the constitution?

 

[bsman]

So, how's that "well regulated militia" thingie working out for you?

 

[Chad]

No, the problem with using the watch list is that it bypasses due process. The NRA has actually said that they'd support legislation to use the list if the problems with the list itself were fixed. Right now there's no telling what criteria are used to place someone on the list, and there's no process to get off the list. That's the tactic of a totalitarian regime, started by Bush, continued by Obama, with plenty of blame to both Republicans and Democrats.

I fully support a solution that has due process rights in pace myself, but do not support the current lists being used for anything, including flying. Fix the lists and then we can have a real conversation.

NRA official statement is here: https://www.nraila.org/articles/20160615/nra-statement-on-terror-watchlists

this one is slippery. While I agree with you to an extent, once you tell someone they are on the watch list, they probably stop plotting shit until they are off it. The whole point of the watch list is to watch them without them knowing. But i agree with you that it could lead to some trumped up reasons to be put on the watch list.

 

[Chad]

So, how's that "well regulated militia" thingie working out for you?

I've debated that before and found I was wrong. When the constitution was written, well regulated could have meant well equipped. There was plenty of other examples from that time to back it up.

 

[bsman]

I've debated that before and found I was wrong. When the constitution was written, well regulated could have meant well equipped. There was plenty of other examples from that time to back it up.

That's one of the problems with the whole "originalist" myth. Everything has changed SOOOO much since the end of the 18th Century. I mean, the only way you can really "understand" the intent of the Framers is to be a white, male, slaveholding landowner!

 

[rhino]

That's one of the problems with the whole "originalist" myth. Everything has changed SOOOO much since the end of the 18th Century. I mean, the only way you can really "understand" the intent of the Framers is to be a white, male, slaveholding landowner!

I'm sure owning slaves was pretty kick ass for the owners or they wouldn't have done it, but it sounds like a pain in the ass to me. I think having pets is cool, but two cats and a dog feels like alot to keep up with at times. I can't imagine having to do that for people.

I feel the same way about having multiple wives. As a teenager that would've sounded awesome. Having been married and divorced once, fuck all that noise.

 

[jelloman]

Some versions if the Bill of Rights read "A well ordered militia"...

 

[Tig]

This is another example of follow the money.

The NRA's job is to make sure gun manufactures keep making money. The discussion turned into Obama is a secret Muslim plotting to take a your guns because it sells more guns. The longer there's gridlock in the legislative branch, the more guns sold.

Such concise reality isn't welcome among the members that still think the NRA is there for them. The NRA and the Tea Party share the same sucker model, while the real power behind it all reaps the profits and grows in power.

Nothing sells better than fear. Nothing.

 

[wagdog]

Yes because you can take YouTube comments into a theater and kill a dozen people in the blink of an eye.

So do slaves still count as 3/5 of a person? That is in the constitution.

Can you walk into a crowded building and yell "fire" without getting arrested?

Can a newspaper write a story saying you sell drugs to children and you don't, can you not sue them for damages and win?

If my religion calls for human sacrifice, can I do that?

Why not, it says so in the constitution?

Pretty sure we've clearly stated that the 1A has time/manner/place restrictions. The 2A already has restrictions placed on it as well.

The point was that it doesn't matter if a technology was available at the time the BoR was written, the BoR still applies.

 

[Tig]

Some versions if the Bill of Rights read "A well ordered militia"...

Do you pair militia with white or red wine? :snooty: