Political/Current Events Random, Pics, and Videos Thread - Page 321 - Miata Turbo Forum -Boost cars, acquire cats.

Welcome to Miataturbo.net   Members
 


Current Events, News, Politics Keep the politics here.

Reply
 
 
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old 07-28-2016, 01:24 AM   #6401
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,865
Total Cats: 483
Default

Meh at this point I wouldnt be surprised if shes the average weight of women in america.

My view on guns is having guns is fine however there needs to be stricter standards for the inspection and the background check.

triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 07:47 AM   #6402
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Quote:
No, but you can certainly express said rights in an extreme way.
The most extreme way someone can express their 2A is strapping on a bunch of guns with the muzzles pointed down -- and then that becomes borderline 1A.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:07 AM   #6403
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 748
Total Cats: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triple88a View Post
Meh at this point I wouldnt be surprised if shes the average weight of women in america.

My view on guns is having guns is fine however there needs to be stricter standards for the inspection and the background check.
Most people seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part. This to me says people should have to be trained how to use, operate, and safely store their arms.
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:10 AM   #6404
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,633
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
The most extreme way someone can express their 2A is strapping on a bunch of guns with the muzzles pointed down -- and then that becomes borderline 1A.
Pretty much.

The problem, of course, is that the evangelical open-carry advocates - the ones who parade around with thigh-holsters saying "Look at me, exercising my second-amendment rights!" make all gun-owners look crazy, and do more harm to the second amendment than any liberal politician.



Anyway...



This was supposed to be yesterday's Pearls Before Swine comic, except that it was pulled by the syndicator:

Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:13 AM   #6405
Elite Member
 
Chiburbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilberts, IL
Posts: 1,949
Total Cats: 106
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by x_25 View Post
Most people seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part. This to me says people should have to be trained how to use, operate, and safely store their arms.
There are arguments that "Well Regulated" meant "well trained and equipped" to the founding fathers. I wish we took both parts of the argument seriously in this country, specifically the part about training. If we are to be an armed country, we should be a well trained and disciplined country. That training should at the bare minimum be safety training, followed up by basic use of force when appropriate, and followed by practical application and marksmanship by the time you exit high school. The practical part could be voluntary.

Well, that's MY ideal world at least.
Chiburbian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:17 AM   #6406
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,477
Total Cats: 373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by x_25 View Post
Most people seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part. This to me says people should have to be trained how to use, operate, and safely store their arms.
Eh. We can rehash 200 years of debate of what it means, but I think it's pretty clear the phrase establishes why the right to bear arms is necessary, rather than limiting that right to a specific case or instance.

But anyway, it's a straw man to say those you disagree with you are skipping over it. At least allow that they might have a different interpretation of that text.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:20 AM   #6407
Elite Member
 
Chiburbian's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Gilberts, IL
Posts: 1,949
Total Cats: 106
Default

Sure, I get that argument Joe, but let's look at it through another lens:

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Pretty much.

The problem, of course, is that the evangelical gay rights advocates - the ones who parade around with tight pants, rainbow shirts, other gay paraphanalia and saying "Look at me, exercising my right to self expression!" make all gays look crazy, and do more harm to the gay rights movement than any bible thumper.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
Pretty much.

The problem, of course, is that the black pride protestors - the ones who parade around with African Flag and tribal attire saying "Look at me, demonstrating pride in my culture and bring attention to my historical repression!" make all blacks look crazy, and do more harm to racial harmony than any KKK member or racist.
One could argue that open carry activists are merely following the path laid by gay rights activists... They didn't get anywhere until they were willing to come out of the closet and be exhuberantly gay in public.
Chiburbian is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:22 AM   #6408
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,633
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Chiburbian View Post
Sure, I get that argument Joe, but let's look at it through another lens:
Broadly speaking, I would tend to agree with your postulate, within the narrowly defined context of a European-descended and Caucasian-majority nation.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 10:25 AM   #6409
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: NorthWest NJ
Posts: 748
Total Cats: 28
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Eh. We can rehash 200 years of debate of what it means, but I think it's pretty clear the phrase establishes why the right to bear arms is necessary, rather than limiting that right to a specific case or instance.

But anyway, it's a straw man to say those you disagree with you are skipping over it. At least allow that they might have a different interpretation of that text.
Never said anything about limiting it. If someone wants to own a gun, fine. But I think that with that responsibility, they should have to have some training on how to safely operate, maintain, store, and shoot it.
x_25 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 11:11 AM   #6410
Crumple Zone Tester
iTrader: (6)
 
mgeoffriau's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: Jackson, MS
Posts: 7,477
Total Cats: 373
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by x_25 View Post
Never said anything about limiting it. If someone wants to own a gun, fine. But I think that with that responsibility, they should have to have some training on how to safely operate, maintain, store, and shoot it.
Mandatory training is a limitation. You might argue that it's a reasonable limitation, and that's fine, but it's a limitation. It would be like arguing that freedom of speech only applies to those who have graduated from journalism school.
mgeoffriau is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 12:06 PM   #6411
Elite Member
iTrader: (2)
 
triple88a's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: Chicago, IL
Posts: 8,865
Total Cats: 483
Default




As far as a well trained militia, there should be affordable government classes for people that use their own guns/ammo. Currently locally the only classes that are available are 500 bucks per class.

The freedom of speech comparison is good however you're trained to speak english from age 1 and think about what you're going to say. Not so much about handling guns though.

Last edited by triple88a; 07-28-2016 at 12:32 PM.
triple88a is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 12:17 PM   #6412
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,633
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mgeoffriau View Post
Mandatory training is a limitation. You might argue that it's a reasonable limitation, and that's fine, but it's a limitation. It would be like arguing that freedom of speech only applies to those who have graduated from journalism school.
Mandatory training is a limitation, yes.

The question, as Chiburbian points out, is whether the "well regulated militia" clause is ALSO a limitation.



No other enumerated right in the Bill of Rights has a qualifying statement in front of it. It doesn't say, for instance, "A well-regulated newspaper being necessary for the information of a free electorate, congress shall make no law abridging the freedom of speech or of the press." If it did, then you'd have a reasonable argument that the first amendment applies only to professional news services, and not to individuals.

But it doesn't say that. It just says "free speech, free press." Period. No qualifications, no limitations. How many rights should we give the people when it comes to religion and expression? Hella rights, dawg.



So why does the 2nd Amendment begin by talking about a well-regulated militia?

It doesn't mention sport-hunting, it doesn't mention self-defense, but it DOES qualify the right to keep and bear arms based on the supposition of a well-regulated militia. Because back then, there wasn't much of a standing army. The country was so young and so poor that farmers and carpenters formed the backbone of the defense force. The best analogy today would be the National Guard; a confederation of part-time armies organized at the state level and accountable to the President, made up of volunteers whose primary job is something other than military, but who receive regular military training and participate in maneuvers a few times a year.


Thus, it's not unreasonable to say that the 2nd Amendment applies only to national guardsmen.


Mind you, I'm not personally making that argument, I'm just pointing out that it's one possible interpretation which is supported by the text.








If I could travel back in time to speak with any one person about any one thing, it'd be to the room in which the bill of rights was being written, to ask for clarification about that exact phrase.





I stood in that room about 3 years ago. If you're an American who is reasonably well-versed in the history of the constitution and the founding of the republic, it's a pretty ******* awe-inspiring place to be.



EDIT: pictures I took while there:







Seriously powerful ****.

Last edited by Joe Perez; 07-28-2016 at 12:29 PM.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 02:09 PM   #6413
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by x_25 View Post
Most people seem to skip over the "a well regulated militia" part. This to me says people should have to be trained how to use, operate, and safely store their arms.
that part of the sentence has no bearing whatsoever.

It could read: A purple dinosaur preaching good lessons being necessary to learning "Sharing is Caring", the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and the right doesn't change.


Plus if one would simply read all the variations of the amendment before it was finally ratified [maybe even a little history behind it as well] they wouldn't agree with you (or that it's about hunting either).

Ill even make it easy for you:

e.g., A well regulated militia, composed of the body of the people, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; but no one religiously scrupulous of bearing arms shall be compelled to render military service in person.

e.g., A well regulated militia, being the best security of a free state, the right of the people to keep and bear arms, shall not be infringed.
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 02:47 PM   #6414
Destroyer of Inconel
iTrader: (37)
 
EO2K's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: In ur driveway, abusin' ur WPA
Posts: 8,729
Total Cats: 746
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by triple88a View Post
Currently locally the only classes that are available are 500 bucks per class.
Serious question: what exactly do you consider adequate training?

<-- is an NRA Certified Instructor and RSO
EO2K is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 05:08 PM   #6415
Boost Pope
iTrader: (8)
 
Joe Perez's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 24,633
Total Cats: 1,562
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Braineack View Post
that part of the sentence has no bearing whatsoever.

It could read: A purple dinosaur preaching good lessons being necessary to learning "Sharing is Caring", the right of the People to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed.

and the right doesn't change.
That's one possible interpretation. There are, of course, others.

Take US v. Miller (1939), in which the Supreme Court ruled that "a shotgun having a barrel less than 18 inches long has today any reasonable relation to the preservation or efficiency of a well regulated militia, and therefore cannot say that the Second Amendment guarantees to the citizen the right to keep and bear such a weapon." Very clearly, that indicates that the Second Amendment is limited only to weapons common in militia service.

Or DC v. Heller (2008), that "Like most rights, the Second Amendment right is not unlimited. It is not a right to keep and carry any weapon whatsoever in any manner whatsoever and for whatever purpose: For example, concealed weapons prohibitions have been upheld under the Amendment or state analogues."


So, two points, really: There clearly ARE limitations on the 2nd, and there exists a substantial body of opinion that the "well regulated militia" clause is meant as a qualifier.

I mean, why else would they put it there? Why does ONLY the 2nd have such a preface? To claim that it is unconnected is basically to presuppose that James Madison was a rambling fool. His own words, in an early proposal of the concept of the Bill of Rights in general: "The right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed; a well armed, and well regulated militia being the best security of a free country: but no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."

Lots of talk about military service in there.
Joe Perez is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 06:20 PM   #6416
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2011
Location: Hollywood, FL
Posts: 395
Total Cats: 11
Default

If I'm reading it right it is specifically separating owning arms and military service. So I agree with Brain. While a well armed militia is mentioned, arms ownership is not the sole reason for such ownership.

And the Supreme Court ruling from 1939 is clearly a sign of the times. How is a sawed off shotgun not considered a good weapon for a militia in CQB? They may be a Supreme Court but they are humans subjective to political agendas and favors to pay back. Their conclusion is an opinion much like any other person that has one on the matter and the cynic in me doesn't believe it is always done in the blind eye of the law.
hector is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 06:32 PM   #6417
Elite Member
iTrader: (3)
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Granbury, TX
Posts: 5,805
Total Cats: 551
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe Perez View Post
"no person religiously scrupulous of bearing arms, shall be compelled to render military service in person."
Imagine how different history would be if the U.S. government was not able to draft soldiers.
hornetball is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 09:02 PM   #6418
Senior Member
iTrader: (6)
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 1,341
Total Cats: 51
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hornetball
Imagine how different history would be if the U.S. government was not able to draft soldiers.
To Joe's post, religious exemptions exists exactly for this reason. And to your point, there'd be a lot less dead Americans in Vietnam.

Edit: And I guess Europe would be under the 1000 year riech....

Last edited by bahurd; 07-28-2016 at 09:20 PM.
bahurd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 09:11 PM   #6419
Boost Czar

Thread Starter
iTrader: (60)
 
Braineack's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Chantilly, VA
Posts: 70,100
Total Cats: 1,400
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hornetball View Post
Imagine how different history would be if the U.S. government was not able to draft soldiers.
more free and in line with our ideals.




100% serious question: why is hillary's speech tonight historic?
Braineack is online now   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2016, 09:30 PM   #6420
AFM Crusader
iTrader: (18)
 
olderguy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Wayne, NJ
Posts: 4,272
Total Cats: 64
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hornetball View Post
Imagine how different history would be if the U.S. government was not able to draft soldiers.
wow



The National WWII Museum | New Orleans: Learn: For Students: WWII by the Numbers: US Military
olderguy is offline   Reply With Quote
 
 
Reply

Related Topics
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Project Gemini - Turbo Civic on the Cheap Full_Tilt_Boogie Build Threads 52 08-28-2016 05:18 AM
OTS Bilstein to motorsports ASN conversion stoves Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 5 04-21-2016 04:00 PM
Going back to stock. Need some 1.6 parts. Trent WTB 2 10-01-2015 01:15 PM
Leaky Wilwoods mx592 Suspension, Brakes, Drivetrain 1 10-01-2015 01:45 AM


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On



All times are GMT -4. The time now is 02:00 PM.