ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

[Admiral Yi]

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

Agreed.  The founders were not totally unfamiliar with the concept of technological advancement.

[derspiess]

I'm actually libertarian on more issues than not.

You're a libertarian in a way that most conservatives are libertarian:  highly selectively.  If your position happens to match the libertarian one, you'll milk the libertarian dogma for added legitimacy, but in no way would your position be driven by libertarian ideals.  Even Soviet Union was "libertarian on some issues".

STOP STALKING ME


But seriously, you don't know me.  On the political scale I'm somewhere between conservative and libertarian.  I've never denied my conservative leanings.  I happen to agree with libertarianism on greater than 50% of the issues and I very much believe in the philosophical underpinnings of libertarianism.

[garbon]

Words are cheap.

[Admiral Yi]

Can you give me an example of Speesh's selective libertarianism DGuller?

[derspiess]

Words are cheap.

Go on.

[Berkut]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?

[derspiess]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?

People who think the 2nd Amendment only grants the right to keep and bear flintlock muskets.

[11B4V]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?

Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?

[Berkut]

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

Agreed.  The founders were not totally unfamiliar with the concept of technological advancement.

My point is that the founders were not familiar with the concept of a magazine, so it is clear that they could not have possibly intended for the second to cover a question about how many rounds a weapon can have in its magazine to begin with.

That isn't saying they would or would not approve had they been aware, simply that you cannot claim that a seven round limit is clearly a violation of the 2nd, while a 10 round limit is not - they had no idea about either of them, so hence could not have a viewpoint.

We already accept that there is SOME limit that is acceptable - nobody argues that the second says you should be able to tote around 200 round belt fed machine guns because that is an "arm". Therefore, the question of 10 vs 7, or 200 vs 10, is clearly NOT a second amendment issue.

This is very relevant, because the SC has in fact used the basic concept of what a individual "arm" is in interpreting the second in the past. At least that is my understanding.

That doesn't mean that it only applies to muskets of course, but it does mean that it likely applies to the basic modern equivalents, at least once the SC changed the 2nd to include the personal right to bear in the first place. But specific details about nuances like how many rounds it can carry? No way (IMO) that you can argue that the second could have a viewpoint on that fine of granularity as to decide HOW MANY rounds is permissible.

[Berkut]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?

Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?

You don't read so good, do you?

[Berkut]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?

People who think the 2nd Amendment only grants the right to keep and bear flintlock muskets.

Who would those people be?

[derspiess]

Who would those people be?

Some guy named Berkut seems to be one of them.

[Berkut]

Who would those people be?

Some guy named Berkut seems to be one of them.

I love it when people are so attached to their strawmen, that someone actually stating "I don't think that" doesn't even dissuade them demanding that they do...

[11B4V]

@ spicey it was not intended as a gotcha or trick question.  I haven't been around long enough to know or remember much.

It appeared to me you thought any discussing of the founder's intentions when drafting the 2nd amendment is not worth considering.  I know 11b called it idiotic.

What's idiotic is the assumption that the founders only intended the 2nd Amendment to cover individual firearms technology that was available for that precise moment in 1787.

That would be rather idiotic. Who is saying such a thing?

Last I checked, a musket only held one round. Hard to argue that the Founding Fathers intended for the Second to protect the "right" of a citizen to fire some arbitrary number of rounds, isn't it?

You don't read so good, do you?

I read very well thank you. Your making the wrong argument.

[derspiess]

Berkut, why do you oppose the SAFE Act?