ACLU Launches Nationwide Police Militarization Investigation

Started by jimmy olsen, March 06, 2013, 05:23:46 PM

Previous topic - Next topic

Admiral Yi

Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
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

Quote from: DGuller on March 08, 2013, 12:19:04 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:11:34 PM
I'm actually libertarian on more issues than not.
:yeahright: 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.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

garbon

"I've never been quite sure what the point of a eunuch is, if truth be told. It seems to me they're only men with the useful bits cut off."
I drank because I wanted to drown my sorrows, but now the damned things have learned to swim.

Admiral Yi

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

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Berkut

Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ 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?
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

derspiess

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ 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.
"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

11B4V

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ 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?

QuoteLast 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?

:rolleyes:
"there's a long tradition of insulting people we disagree with here, and I'll be damned if I listen to your entreaties otherwise."-OVB

"Obviously not a Berkut-commanded armored column.  They're not all brewing."- CdM

"We've reached one of our phase lines after the firefight and it smells bad—meaning it's a little bit suspicious... Could be an amb—".

Berkut

Quote from: Admiral Yi on March 08, 2013, 12:27:47 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
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.
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Berkut

Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 12:36:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ 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?

QuoteLast 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?

:rolleyes:

You don't read so good, do you?
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

Berkut

Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:35:25 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ 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?
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall

Berkut

Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:44:11 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:42:06 PM
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...
"If you think this has a happy ending, then you haven't been paying attention."

select * from users where clue > 0
0 rows returned

11B4V

Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:41:50 PM
Quote from: 11B4V on March 08, 2013, 12:36:41 PM
Quote from: Berkut on March 08, 2013, 12:34:08 PM
Quote from: derspiess on March 08, 2013, 12:21:50 PM
Quote from: sbr on March 08, 2013, 12:16:00 PM
@ 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?

QuoteLast 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?

:rolleyes:

You don't read so good, do you?

I read very well thank you. Your making the wrong argument.
"there's a long tradition of insulting people we disagree with here, and I'll be damned if I listen to your entreaties otherwise."-OVB

"Obviously not a Berkut-commanded armored column.  They're not all brewing."- CdM

"We've reached one of our phase lines after the firefight and it smells bad—meaning it's a little bit suspicious... Could be an amb—".

derspiess

"If you can play a guitar and harmonica at the same time, like Bob Dylan or Neil Young, you're a genius. But make that extra bit of effort and strap some cymbals to your knees, suddenly people want to get the hell away from you."  --Rich Hall