Gun Control Discussion 2

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

Thus far, I've read the cases on the 4th and 5th amendment, but have not seen how any of these cases have demonstrated a "change in interpretation and implication." Please explain.

No.  If you don't understand how all of the above cases changed the interpretation of the respective amendments, that's on you.

[Mother Cocanuts]

Just now, dmc515 said:

No.  If you don't understand how all of the above cases changed the interpretation of the respective amendments, that's on you.

No, it's on you. If you can't provide an explanation for your argument which is, these cases demonstrate that there has been a change in the interpretation and implication of these amendments, then you're either obfuscating or you're incapable of offering any substance to your argument. Of course, you're free to not argue, but it's not up to me to guess your explanation.

[Darth Richard II]

Allow me to respond with one of my infamous emoji only posts:

[DMC]

1 minute ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

If you can't provide an explanation for your argument which is, these cases demonstrate that there has been a change in the interpretation and implication of these amendments

A lot of it has to do with incorporation.  Here's something for that.  But you're right, I'm not going to walk you through a banal stroll of American history.  Because it's really not worth the time.  

[Yukle]

4 hours ago, kairparavel said:

This discussion will never ever go anywhere because of a fragile piece of paper locked up in an environmentally controlled room lest it disintegrate, written by men who had real issues about a few things at that point in time, based on what they knew right then and before then, and didn't know about the coming technological improvements in firearms. Or bullets. Or transportation that could get you around quicker than a horse and get you to your targets faster. Or population changes and growth. Or disgruntied employees and estranged spouses/boyfriends who lack the mental capacity to not take down people with guns in moments of crisis. Or road rage. Or malls. 

This is the main crux of the issue with gun control.

When the Bill of Rights was adopted, the American government didn't have a standing army. That's a huge deal. They were more or less culturally British and Britain didn't have a standing army either. Their armies were made up of those on commission. It worked differently to how it does now: you would sign up for a fixed period to get a fixed level of pay. Depending on the circumstances, you were often allowed to keep war booty as part of your pay.

A soldier's service ended when their commission expired. Washington did all sorts of clever political gymnastics to get his soldiers to extend their terms of service, promising more pay, back-pay, bonuses and so on.

Therefore at the time when the Constitution was written, the idea wasn't to arm citizens to overthrow government at all. It was the idea to arm citizens because they were the army. There were only state-based militia, organised by patriots and funded by one-off, campaign-by-campaign payments.

In times of emergency there was no military to deploy, rather, people had to be rallied to right when a call to arms was made. If people were expected to go unprotected by a state army, then it was only reasonable to allow them to have weapons at home (and it's worth stressing that "arms" did not apply only to guns, but to swords, pikes, body armour and other weapons used in war at the time) so that if a militia was rallied, it would be able to defend itself at a moment's notice.

The Caribbean Islands, Canada and Mexico were all under the control of large empires and the USA had no long-term allies to rely upon. They wanted to be able to rally militia for national defence.

[Rippounet]

28 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

Allow me to respond with one of my infamous emoji only posts:

I second that.

Let this be a lesson for all: in order to "win" an argument on the internet, all you have to do is refuse to admit the existence of inconvenient facts, or pretend that you don't know or don't understand them. Then you can shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people not only provide the facts, but even explain them to you.
Then, of course, you may quibble about the explanations. By the time you've reached that point, the conversation will have veered so far off track that it will have become meaningless anyway.

Anyway, yeah, the interpretation of the US Constitution has changed through time. Like, duh! That's what landmark SCOTUS decisions are all about.
Not that this is helpful in the short term, given the current composition of the SCOTUS... It will take a couple of decades of Democratic presidencies to possibly change anything on that front.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

3 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Let this be a lesson for all: in order to "win" an argument on the internet, all you have to do is refuse to admit the existence of inconvenient facts, or pretend that you don't know or don't understand them. Then you can shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people not only provide the facts, but even explain them to you.

All you "win" in that case is being categorized as a troll. Nothing productive comes of it. He hasn't convinced anyone of anything and he has even denied himself the possibility of learning something new. Big Lose-Lose all the way around. 

[DMC]

8 minutes ago, Rippounet said:

Let this be a lesson for all: in order to "win" an argument on the internet, all you have to do is refuse to admit the existence of inconvenient facts, or pretend that you don't know or don't understand them. Then you can shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people not only provide the facts, but even explain them to you.

Not only all of that, but then what do you win exactly?  Really, we all lose.  MALA.

4 minutes ago, Manhole Eunuchsbane said:

Big Lose-Lose all the way around.

Yup.  As a fellow Niners fan I figured this would be most intuitive to you.

[Darth Richard II]

I don't get why you guys keep trying to engae with him at this point. Maybe you're all too nice.

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

9 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

Yup.  As a fellow Niners fan I figured this would be most intuitive to you.

Lulz. Touche. It's been a long season already, and we're not even at the halfway point.

[DMC]

2 minutes ago, Darth Richard II said:

I don't get why you guys keep trying to engae with him at this point. Maybe you're all too nice.

It's both fun and professionally useful for me to reaquaint myself with landmark cases.

[Rippounet]

6 minutes ago, dmc515 said:

It's both fun and professionally useful for me to reaquaint myself with landmark cases.

Same here actually. I have a professional interest in American constitutional law. And thanks for the list you provided btw. It certainly won't help with this discussion, but at some point I will read about the cases you posted I'm not already familiar with and use them in class.
Some good will come out of this, eventually.

[Yukle]

1 hour ago, Rippounet said:

Anyway, yeah, the interpretation of the US Constitution has changed through time. Like, duh! That's what landmark SCOTUS decisions are all about.

My favourite landmark case in US history is: Marbury versus Madison 1803. Why? It's the moment when the SCOTUS declared it had the power to declare laws unconstitutional - a check on Legislative Powers that is not in the Constitution.

I like pointing that out to hardcore conservative Americans: if you go with the letter of the law, as you seem to want, then the Supreme Court cannot actually declare that laws violate your Constitution.

In Australia, the Constitution explicitly states:

(Section 76):

The Parliament may make laws conferring original jurisdiction on the High Court in any matter:

1. arising under this Constitution, or involving its interpretation..

No such provision exists in the USA. That's really important to recognise for those who rely on these Supreme Court decisions to carry handguns; you must accept that interpretation of the spirit of the law both exists and supports your argument.

[IamMe90]

3 hours ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

NRA didn't change how it's seen. There's a legitimate linguistic dispute over the meaning of 2nd Amendment. NRA has correctly argued that the statement, "A well regulated Militia, being necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms, shall not be infringed" is an ablative absolute construction. Those who have opposed the private use of firearms argued that the first two clauses set a condition for the third clause. This is, at least grammatically, incorrect. "A well regulated Militia" sets a condition for nothing. "Being necessary to the security of a free State" either modifies the previous clause, or the successive clause. Here I can give you an example:

Having eaten, being that supper was prepared at 6, Jon Smith went partying. Jon Smith went partying can stand on its own as a sentence. The two previous sentences give information, but they do not set conditions--meaning, he needs neither to eat or wait until after 6, to go out. It can also be read as John Smith ate the supper that was prepared at 6, and he went partying. Now if we take the statement in the 2nd amendment and apply that logic, it would read as this,  "A well regulated militia is necessary to the security of a free State, and the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be infringed." (The purpose of an absolute construction is to put two clauses together without a conjunction.) The only subordinate clause in that statement is "being necessary to the security of a free State"; therefore, "well regulated militia" modifies nothing.

The grammar is important because the meaning is important for interpretation. And the NRA got it right.

I don't buy this argument. Either way you interpret it, the syntax is not structured correctly. Frankly, the writing in this Amendment is sloppy, and it is for precisely this reason that its interpretation has been so contentious. It doesn't matter which side you're on here; anyone who tries to conform the grammar here to his or her own interpretation is engaging in guesswork and most likely post-hoc rationalization. 

I mean, come on man; in order to fit the sentence to your interpretation, you subtracted a verb ("is"), added in a present participle ("being"), and inserted a conjunction to connect two independent clauses that were formerly fragments. 

I could just as easily fit this Amendment to my own interpretation by changing it to, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be fringed." I have syntactically altered the sentence to the same degree, or less, than you did. Yet, I still won't claim that I know what the framers were thinking because of that. It's silly.

 

[Mother Cocanuts]

2 hours ago, Rippounet said:

I second that.

Let this be a lesson for all: in order to "win" an argument on the internet, all you have to do is refuse to admit the existence of inconvenient facts, or pretend that you don't know or don't understand them. Then you can shift the burden of proof by demanding that other people not only provide the facts, but even explain them to you.
Then, of course, you may quibble about the explanations. By the time you've reached that point, the conversation will have veered so far off track that it will have become meaningless anyway.

Anyway, yeah, the interpretation of the US Constitution has changed through time. Like, duh! That's what landmark SCOTUS decisions are all about.
Not that this is helpful in the short term, given the current composition of the SCOTUS... It will take a couple of decades of Democratic presidencies to possibly change anything on that front.

I'm not trying to "win" an argument--I'm trying to establish the facts. dmc515 made the argument that the amendments have changed in interpretation and implication. I ask for a reference, and he provides cases he believes are relevant. I look through some of the cases and then put forward that I don't see how there have been any changes in the interpretation or implication, and ask him to explain. In other words, connect your reference to your argument. He refused, suggesting that the if I don't see the connection between his argument and his reference, that's on me. That Rippounet is the shift in the burden of proof. It's his burden to explain because it's his argument. If I were simply "refusing to admit the existence of inconvenient facts" not only would I have completely rejected his argument but I also wouldn't have asked him to explain. Now it's his prerogative to engage me in a discussion or not, but let's not pretend that I'm being willfully ignorant.

2 hours ago, Darth Richard II said:

I don't get why you guys keep trying to engae with him at this point. Maybe you're all too nice.

Because, they like to argue. And they have something to contribute. Up until now, they were not simply complaining about indulging a debate with me. (You could take a lesson from that.) But why don't you ask yourself, why do you engage? You haven't really contributed anything other than to attempt to insult me, or undermine my participation. You pay me way too much attention, even if that attention is negative. And no one is forcing you or any other person to do anything here. If you don't want to see my posts, put me on your ignore list. What you won't do--and I can assure you--is stop me from making comments, let alone the others. It's your call how you move on from this.

[Mother Cocanuts]

50 minutes ago, IamMe90 said:

I could just as easily fit this Amendment to my own interpretation by changing it to, "Because a well regulated Militia is necessary to the security of a free State, the right of the people to keep and bear Arms shall not be fringed." I have syntactically altered the sentence to the same degree, or less, than you did. Yet, I still won't claim that I know what the framers were thinking because of that. It's silly.

No you couldn't. Because the only clear subordinate clause is "being necessary to the security of a free state." "A well regulated Militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" are both independent clauses. Therefore, the subordinate conjunction "because" either connects the subordinate clause to the first independent clause or the second. Not both at the same time. All I did when I altered the sentence is add a conjunction (not a subordinate one) "and." Clearly in my example, the subordinate clause is modifying one of the independent clauses. I haven't changed it much at all. You on the other hand have changed an independent clause into a dependent one, thereby altering its meaning. It's not "silly" if you appreciate the nuances of grammar.

[Darth Richard II]

See?

edit: although I will admit at this point it has become somewhat comical 

[Manhole Eunuchsbane]

1 hour ago, Mother Cocanuts said:

No you couldn't. Because the only clear subordinate clause is "being necessary to the security of a free state." "A well regulated Militia" and "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed" are both independent clauses. Therefore, the subordinate conjunction "because" either connects the subordinate clause to the first independent clause or the second. Not both at the same time. All I did when I altered the sentence is add a conjunction (not a subordinate one) "and." Clearly in my example, the subordinate clause is modifying one of the independent clauses. I haven't changed it much at all. You on the other hand have changed an independent clause into a dependent one, thereby altering its meaning. It's not "silly" if you appreciate the nuances of grammar.

All that aside, before the night is up, Jon Smith will be tossing a sidewalk pizza.

[DMC]

4 hours ago, Rippounet said:

Same here actually. I have a professional interest in American constitutional law. And thanks for the list you provided btw. It certainly won't help with this discussion, but at some point I will read about the cases you posted I'm not already familiar with and use them in class.
Some good will come out of this, eventually.

That's nice to hear, thanks.  

[BigFatCoward]

I'm not sure which thread I'm most enjoying them spamming up, this horseshit or the NBA one where they are adamant that LeBron is shite. 

What next, an impassioned defence of Weinstein?