# Truth, post Charleston.



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Warning: naughty language.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

tocqueville said:


> Warning: naughty language.


Some of the language might be naughty, but it is hard to argue against anything that he says.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

32rollandrock said:


> Some of the language might be naughty, but it is hard to argue against anything that he says.


I concur.

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Ignorance makes good comedy.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

No, ignorance yields tragedy. 


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

From tragedy comes good comedy.

Can you point out a single point he makes that is wrong?



Liberty Ship said:


> Ignorance makes good comedy.


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Yes it does...
.....and if we ever needed the protections of the Second Amendment in this apparently misguided Nation of ours, we surely need them now! Special interest groups own far too many members of our Congress, we are saddled with an arguably incompetent president, and our courts have become confused and seem to occasionally think themselves to be the legislative branch. Frankly, we had better all be preparing ourselves to be more self reliant!


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

You are almost always the voice of reason, but not so much here, in my opinion. I'm hard-pressed to think of an interest group that has tighter control of Congress than the NRA. This sounds like you're advocating some sort of Omega Man scenario. If we survived Dubya (and before him, Nixon, and before him, Harding, and before him, Johnson, and before him, Fillmore--the list of terrible presidents is at least as long as good ones) we can survive Obama. Surely, I hope, you are not advocating anarchy. While we may disagree with what elected leaders do and say, we can't throw the institutions out with the bath water.



eagle2250 said:


> ^^Yes it does...
> .....and if we ever needed the protections of the Second Amendment in this apparently misguided Nation of ours, we surely need them now! *Special interest groups own far too many members of our Congress*, we are saddled with an arguably incompetent president, and our courts have become confused and seem to occasionally think themselves to be the legislative branch. Frankly, we had better all be preparing ourselves to be more self reliant!


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^"Advocating anarchy(?)"... hell no! I am all about law and order! I am simply saying that difficult, confusing times such as our country is presently going through illustrate the continued validity , ney...criticality of the Second amendment to it's citizens. I agree with you, we have endured many incompetent presidents, but, in my opinion, none quite so incompetent as the present. A lack of leadership is his most obvious shortcoming! Trust me when I tell you, it literally pains me when I feel compelled to express such opinion(s).


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Actually, if you read the Second and the intent of the Founders, we should be allowed to have a tank, but it would be fine to regulate handguns....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

I don't know.

Are these times any more confusing or difficult than, say, the 1960s? I can't say that they were, not being old enough to have personal knowledge, but I suspect that if the 1960s weren't more turbulent and confusing than these times, they were surely close. I'd argue that the 1930s were a lot tougher than today. And, of course, we had the 1860s.

For whatever reason, folks didn't seem to shoot up churches and schools and shopping malls and city streets in any of those times as much as they do today. Who knows why?



eagle2250 said:


> ^^"Advocating anarchy(?)"... hell no! I am all about law and order! I am simply saying that difficult, confusing times such as our country is presently going through illustrate the continued validity , ney...criticality of the Second amendment to it's citizens. I agree with you, we have endured many incompetent presidents, but, in my opinion, none quite so incompetent as the present. A lack of leadership is his most obvious shortcoming! Trust me when I tell you, it literally pains me when I feel compelled to express such opinion(s).


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

^^Once again, my friend, I agree with everything you have said, in the post above. We have endured many periods of confusion, challenge, sacrifice, threat. The 1960's are an excellent example of such and a period during which I am somewhat embarrassed to say, I accepted the storyline promoted by our government, virtually without question. Looking back, given the perspective history has provided, I'm not so sure anymore. Yes we, as individual citizens needed the protections of the second amendment then, just as we do now.

However, a big difference between the past and what we are facing these days is that the word has become a much more dangerous place, the risks are far greater, the issues much more complicated, our citizenry less compassionate and our tolerance for great(er) violence in our lives has grown. Does it alarm any of us that thanks to our media ( movies, TV shows, the evening news, video games) young men such as Roof have seen more visual images of death and destruction than many folks that have spent entire careers in military service and have served through multiple conflicts. If we teach violence, if we immerse of young in an atosphere that showcases violence, we are we so shocked when they act out in such aberrant(?) manners? Gentlemen, as the Good Book tells us, the simple fact is that we reap what we sow!


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

tocqueville said:


> Warning: naughty language.


Very good. Sad, but very good.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Actually, if you read the Second and the intent of the Founders, we should be allowed to have a tank, but it would be fine to regulate handguns....


The classic understanding is that there is no role at all for the federal government in the realm of arms regulation of the citizenry (because there is no power in the Constitution to do so, and the Second Amendment makes this explicit), but States have the right to regulate arms in their respective jurisdictions (as per the understanding of federalism and as made explicit by the Tenth Amendment).

Of course, the Constitution can be amended to change this, as per Article V...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> The classic understanding is that there is no role at all for the federal government in the realm of arms regulation of the citizenry (because there is no power in the Constitution to do so, and the Second Amendment makes this explicit), but States have the right to regulate arms in their respective jurisdictions (as per the understanding of federalism and as made explicit by the Tenth Amendment).
> 
> Of course, the Constitution can be amended to change this, as per Article V...


The second specifically calls out the reason for the right to keep and bear arms is that having a well regulated militia. You can have a militia without handguns. Even in colonial times, side arms were more for decoration than actual military use.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> The second specifically calls out the reason for the right to keep and bear arms is that having a well regulated militia. You can have a militia without handguns. Even in colonial times, side arms were more for decoration than actual military use.


Nope - the amendment is merely making the point as to how important it is for people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny. The history is abundantly clear on this one...no federal role in infringing on the right to bear arms.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Nope - the amendment is merely making the point as to how important it is for people to be able to defend themselves against tyranny. The history is abundantly clear on this one...no federal role in infringing on the right to bear arms.


Most of the debate around this amendment was whether a citizen could be compelled to take up arms even in the face of religious objection, not about limiting arms.

Have you ever read the debates in the House on the amendments? They are really quite interesting and provide insight into what the Founders intended.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Most of the debate around this amendment was whether a citizen could be compelled to take up arms even in the face of religious objection, not about limiting arms.
> 
> Have you ever read the debates in the House on the amendments? They are really quite interesting and provide insight into what the Founders intended.


The key is what the State legislatures wanted when they submitted the ponderous list of proposed amendments. To be honest, I never heard of the reason you provided...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Most of the debate around this amendment was whether a citizen could be compelled to take up arms even in the face of religious objection, not about limiting arms.
> 
> Have you ever read the debates in the House on the amendments? They are really quite interesting and provide insight into what the Founders intended.


I haven't read the debates, but I'm pretty sure they didn't intend for it to become a let-'er-rip situation.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> I haven't read the debates, but I'm pretty sure they didn't intend for it to become a let-'er-rip situation.


Just about everyone owned firearms in the 18th century, primarily for protection and hunting. The right to do so did not need to be granted; it existed and was thus protected. The political reason - to guard against government tyranny - was a recurring theme among the Founders and Framers. Support for this position is voluminous...


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

I'm on a roll: https://www.newyorker.com/humor/bor...laining-things-to-idiots?mbid=social_facebook

Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

The truth is, I increasingly wonder whether life in these violent United States is worth it. Not sure I want my retirement years to be spent amongst gun fanatics and Confederate flag worshipers. (And I believe the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct in the USA, so nothing is likely to change anytime soon.)

The big problem for me is that golf is too freaking expensive in France, and New Zealand is so far away. :angry:


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> The key is what the State legislatures wanted when they submitted the ponderous list of proposed amendments. To be honest, I never heard of the reason you provided...


My reasons are the debates in the Constitutional Convention and the HOR for the amendments. They really aren't that long and listed concisely here. They are fairly easy reads, although sometimes the language and abbreviations takes some close reading.

https://press-pubs.uchicago.edu/founders/tocs/toc.html

Here is the full debate on the Second:




> 17, 20 Aug. 1789





> _Annals 1:749--52, 766--67 _ [_17 Aug._]
> 
> The House again resolved itself into a committee, Mr. Boudinot in the chair, on the proposed amendments to the constitution. The third clause of the fourth proposition in the report was taken into consideration, being as follows: "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 person religiously scrupulous shall be compelled to bear arms."
> 
> ...


How about you - what do you base your opinions on?

It is also worth remembering that the BOR does not get a special exclusion from interpretation. Once they were passed, they simply became an equal part of the Constitution as a whole and any incongruities would be the domain of the SC.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

The debate to which you speak of was the fear that people may be obligated to join a militia when conscientious objections were present. As I mentioned earlier, the record is voluminous - overwhelmingly, Federalists and Anti-Federalists had the same opinion of gun ownership, as did the vast majority in the new Congress and in the State ratification conventions. The right pre-existed the Constitution. Everyone owned a gun in the 18th century, for protection and hunting. Many also believed that the right to bear arms must be protected to prevent government tyranny - please see Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Mason, Henry, R.H. Lee, and so many more on this topic. Not sure there's a record of _anyone _who argued against the personal right to bear arms, irrespective of militias. There might be, but I am unaware of it.

Again, I ask you, where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power to "interpret" the Constitution? The very word scares me, as it did Jefferson, because the power to "interpret" really means the power to exposite _anything _according to the (biased) perspective of the expositor. In that case, words lose all meaning, and defeats the purpose of having a constitution in the first place!

Hasn't that happened repeatedly in U.S. history? Hence, my referral to the Court as a judicial oligarchy...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> The debate to which you speak of was the fear that people may be obligated to join a militia when conscientious objections were present. As I mentioned earlier, the record is voluminous - overwhelmingly, Federalists and Anti-Federalists had the same opinion of gun ownership, as did the vast majority in the new Congress and in the State ratification conventions. The right pre-existed the Constitution. Everyone owned a gun in the 18th century, for protection and hunting. Many also believed that the right to bear arms must be protected to prevent government tyranny - please see Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Mason, Henry, R.H. Lee, and so many more on this topic. Not sure there's a record of _anyone _who argued against the personal right to bear arms, irrespective of militias. There might be, but I am unaware of it.


They were specific as to the purpose because of their experiences. Also, it is very much worth noting that armaments at the time they wrote the Constitution were pretty much the same for personal and military use - in fact it was not uncommon for a man to bring his own personal weapon with him. That is not the case now - hence, the comment about being allowed a tank, but not a pistol.



> Again, I ask you, where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power to "interpret" the Constitution? The very word scares me, as it did Jefferson, because the power to "interpret" really means the power to exposite _anything _according to the (biased) perspective of the expositor. In that case, words lose all meaning, and defeats the purpose of having a constitution in the first place!
> 
> Hasn't that happened repeatedly in U.S. history? Hence, my referral to the Court as a judicial oligarchy...


Article 3. When they say that they shall have jurisdiction over, what exactly do you think that means?

And Marbury v Madison established the idea of Judicial Review.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

vpkozel said:


> The second specifically calls out the reason for the right to keep and bear arms is that having a well regulated militia. You can have a militia without handguns. Even in colonial times, side arms were more for decoration than actual military use.


Actually, the founders believed in checks and balances. They were also opposed to a standing army; the "well regulated militia," a necessary evil required for the security of a free State. So, resigned to the necessity of the well regulated militia, they guaranteed that the people would be commensurately armed as a check and balance against the tyranny that could otherwise be imposed by said "well regulated" militia. We, the people, are the (unregulated) militia.

"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." In other words, "since we have to have the military and the police to maintain security and order, y'all can keep your guns in case they get out line."


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Liberty Ship said:


> Actually, the founders believed in checks and balances. They were also opposed to a standing army; the "well regulated militia," a necessary evil required for the security of a free State. So, resigned to the necessity of the well regulated militia, they guaranteed that the people would be commensurately armed as a check and balance against the tyranny that could otherwise be imposed by said "well regulated" militia. We, the people, are the (unregulated) militia.
> 
> "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." In other words, "since we have to have the military and the police to maintain security and order, y'all can keep your guns in case they get out line."


They were not opposed to a standing army since they specifically called out an army and navy, but they certainly were wary of one because of their recent experiences, so they limited it in term and then when that was not good enough, they added the Second. But I agree with the rest - and, with your permission, I will be stealing the last line, cause that's gold Jerry, GOLD!

As I said a few posts up, at the time there was no real difference between military and private weapons - that is not the case now. And handguns have never been a true need of an armed force. In fact they are pretty much useless almost all of the time.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Article 3. When they say that they shall have jurisdiction over, what exactly do you think that means? And Marbury v Madison established the idea of Judicial Review.


Article III does not grant the power of "judicial review" over Congress and the States. Not sure where you're seeing this power.

If the power of "judicial review" already existed in Article III, why would Marbury V. Madison (1803) need to "establish the idea of judicial review"? Besides, don't you see the problem inherent with one branch of the federal government giving itself the power to determine a) its own power, and b) the power of the other branches of the federal government (and of the States)? Government determining its own power is the essence of tyranny!


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Patrick Henry, George Mason, R.H. Lee and others referred to the "militia" as being the people armed to protect themselves and their rights...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Article III does not grant the power of "judicial review" over Congress and the States. Not sure where your seeing this power.
> 
> If the power of "judicial review" already existed in Article III, why would Marbury V. Madison (1803) need to "establish the idea of judicial review"? Besides, don't you see the problem inherent with one branch of the federal government giving itself the power to determine a) its own power, and b) the power of the other branches of the federal government (and of the States)? Government determining its own power is the essence of tyranny!


I never said that Article 3 granted the right to judicial review. I said it gives the USSC jurisdiction over specific cases.

And no, I don't see an issue with judicial review - or at least didn't until the middle 20th century - because there is a way to overrule any and every USSC ruling.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Patrick Henry, George Mason, R.H. Lee and others referred to the "militia" as being the people armed to protect themselves and their rights...


And what were these militia armed with?


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> And what were these militia armed with?


Not sure of your point...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I never said that Article 3 granted the right to judicial review. I said it gives the USSC jurisdiction over specific cases.
> 
> And no, I don't see an issue with judicial review - or at least didn't until the middle 20th century - because there is a way to overrule any and every USSC ruling.


We'll agree to disagree.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> We'll agree to disagree.


You do agree that the Constitution establishes the courts and gives them jurisdiction over the Constitution and all laws created under it though, right?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> Not sure of your point...


Militia aren't armed with pistols.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

As the chap said, the 2nd Amendment was written when "arms" were muskets and bayonets rather than assault rifles.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

It's hard to go on a shooting spree with a musket.

Also, I suspect a musket in 1786 cost a whole lot more than most modern firearms at least in relationship to people's incomes. There would have been a lot fewer in circulation per capita.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


----------



## eagle2250 (Mar 24, 2006)

MaxBuck said:


> The truth is, I increasingly wonder whether life in these violent United States is worth it. Not sure I want my retirement years to be spent amongst gun fanatics and Confederate flag worshipers. (And I believe the 2nd Amendment is sacrosanct in the USA, so nothing is likely to change anytime soon.)
> 
> The big problem for me is that golf is too freaking expensive in France, and New Zealand is so far away. :angry:


LOL. Not really a problem there. You simply have to make sure that your personal collection of firearms and munitions is superior to that of your neighbors and that you know how to use them!  Seriously, life has provided me with the opportunity to see a surprising number of locations in the world, some under less than pleasant conditions and frankly, there is no other place in this ever increasingly polluted and screwed up world of ours that I would rather be than right here in the grand old USA! She's far from perfect, but she is mine.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

tocqueville said:


> It's hard to go on a shooting spree with a musket.
> 
> Also, I suspect a musket in 1786 cost a whole lot more than most modern firearms at least in relationship to people's incomes. There would have been a lot fewer in circulation per capita.
> 
> Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk


Not sure why guns per capita would be important, but guns per household is apparently lower today.

Then....
Gun ownership is particularly high compared to other common items. For example, in 813 itemized male inventories from the 1774 Jones national database, guns are listed in 54% of estates, compared to only 30% of estates listing any cash, 14% listing swords or edged weapons, 25% listing Bibles, 62% listing any book, and 79% listing any clothes. Using hierarchical loglinear modeling, the authors show that guns are more common in early American inventories where the decedent was male, Southern, rural, slave-owning, or above the lowest social class-or where the inventories were more detailed.

The picture of gun ownership that emerges from these analyses substantially contradicts the assertions of Michael Bellesiles in Arming America: The Origins of a National Gun Culture (Arming America). Contrary to Arming America's claims about probate inventories in seventeenth and eighteenth-century America, there were high numbers of guns, guns were much more common than swords or other edged weapons, women in 1774 owned guns at rates (18%) higher than Bellesiles claimed men did in 1765-1790 (14.7%), and 87-91% of gun-owning estates listed at least one gun that was not old or broken.

And now...

Gun ownership is now back at the low point it reached in 2010: Only 32 percent of Americans own a firearm or live with someone who does, compared with about half the population in the late 1970s and early 1980s, according to the 2014 General Social Survey (GSS). The survey is a project of independent research organization NORC at the University of Chicago, with principal funding from the National Science Foundation.

https://www.newsweek.com/us-gun-ownership-declines-312822


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

How is it that you seem to know so well what people who lived hundreds of years ago did and thought? You can't know that. No one can know that. All you can know is what you can garner from reading what people wrote, which is, I would submit, considerably less than encyclopedic. I don't know the precise percentages, because no one can know the precise percentages, but a pretty fair number of folks back then were illiterate and so could not leave behind any record of what they did and thought.

Regardless...

Someone please remind me what well-regulated militia had the shooter in South Carolina, the Sandy Hook guy, the Columbine guys, the Virginia Tech guy, the Aurora guy, etc., as members.



Tiger said:


> The debate to which you speak of was the fear that people may be obligated to join a militia when conscientious objections were present. As I mentioned earlier, the record is voluminous - overwhelmingly, Federalists and Anti-Federalists had the same opinion of gun ownership, as did the vast majority in the new Congress and in the State ratification conventions. The right pre-existed the Constitution. *Everyone owned a gun in the 18th century, for protection and hunting.* Many also believed that the right to bear arms must be protected to prevent government tyranny - please see Franklin, Madison, Jefferson, Mason, Henry, R.H. Lee, and so many more on this topic. Not sure there's a record of _anyone _who argued against the personal right to bear arms, irrespective of militias. There might be, but I am unaware of it.
> 
> Again, I ask you, where in the Constitution does it say that the Supreme Court has the power to "interpret" the Constitution? The very word scares me, as it did Jefferson, because the power to "interpret" really means the power to exposite _anything _according to the (biased) perspective of the expositor. In that case, words lose all meaning, and defeats the purpose of having a constitution in the first place!
> 
> Hasn't that happened repeatedly in U.S. history? Hence, my referral to the Court as a judicial oligarchy...


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

Chouan said:


> As the chap said, the 2nd Amendment was written when "arms" were muskets and bayonets rather than assault rifles.


Right. At the time, The People were commensurately armed with state of the art personal weapons. To restrict the technology available to The People while continuing to improve the technology available to the police and the military would over time result in de facto, or constructive, disarmament of The People. So, we get the personal weapons available to the military and the police. Anything short of that is the infringement that the Founders warned against.

And, no, that would not extend to crew served weapons, or grenades, or military grade explosives. The reason for that is a civil requirement that the user be able to control the effects of the weapon to the extent that accountability clearly attaches to the use.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Liberty Ship said:


> Right. At the time, The People were commensurately armed with state of the art personal weapons. To restrict the technology available to The People while continuing to improve the technology available to the police and the military would over time result in de facto, or constructive, disarmament of The People. So, we get the personal weapons available to the military and the police. Anything short of that is the infringement that the Founders warned against.
> 
> And, no, that would not extend to crew served weapons, or grenades, or military grade explosives. The reason for that is a civil requirement that the user be able to control the effects of the weapon to the extent that accountability clearly attaches to the use.


I have never considered the second part of your point before and I agree with it as to why we are not actually allowed to own tanks, but historically militias DID own cannons - which are crew served and require practice to use safely. And the accountability piece is also covered by the well regulated phrase.

So, I guess that I am asking why shouldn't a proven responsible party with the ability to use it correctly be allowed to buy a tank for his militia? I don't have an answer, nor am I advocating for it, but I think it is a good question.


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

eagle2250 said:


> LOL. Not really a problem there. You simply have to make sure that your personal collection of firearms and munitions is superior to that of your neighbors and that you know how to use them!


My personal collection of firearms and munitions:


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Liberty Ship said:


> 1. we get the personal weapons available to the military and the police. Anything short of that is the infringement that the Founders warned against.
> 
> 2. that would not extend to crew served weapons, or grenades, or military grade explosives.


You've just made two completely contradictory arguments here.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

Just going to throw this out here. I am sick and tired of people changing the definitions of words, and terms to make their arguments valid.

Assault Rifle:
a rapid-fire, magazine-fed *automatic* rifle designed for infantry use.

Generally what people are referring to when they speak of "assualt rifles" are semi-automatic guns that are not "assault rifles" It is completely legal to own a fully automatic gun if you can find one of the pre-1986 banned ones for sale, and you can afford their lofty price tags anywhere from 15-20k there are an estimated 150-180k of these out there, and almost none are for sale. There are also a lot of hoops you must jump through to purchase one including your local chief law enforcement officer saying that is OK for you to own it.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> You've just made two completely contradictory arguments here.


No, it really isn't. Does your police department have a fighter jet, tank, or aircraft carrier?


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

vpkozel said:


> No, it really isn't. Does your police department have a fighter jet, tank, or aircraft carrier?


First, he didn't restrict his analysis to the police, but included the military. Second, he suggested the populace be empowered to own all "state of the art personal weapons," which would include such toys as RPG launchers, bazookas, submachine guns and grenades. Then he backtracked and placed his own, highly subjective and capricious, limitation onto the putative "right."


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

This is a broad brush. You also need permission from the U.S. Department of Treasury. Not sure where you are getting your definition. Webster's says that semi-automatics qualify: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle

That said, the definition is controversial: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html



Dmontez said:


> Just going to throw this out here. I am sick and tired of people changing the definitions of words, and terms to make their arguments valid.
> 
> Assault Rifle:
> a rapid-fire, magazine-fed *automatic* rifle designed for infantry use.
> ...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> This is a broad brush. You also need permission from the U.S. Department of Treasury. Not sure where you are getting your definition. Webster's says that semi-automatics qualify: https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/assault rifle
> 
> That said, the definition is controversial: https://www.nytimes.com/2013/01/17/us/even-defining-assault-weapons-is-complicated.html


The department of treasury thing only helps my point that they are NOT easy to come by. I use a mid 90's dictionary for definitions. I see definitions changing all too often to pacify the PC crowd.

So, what you are telling me is that there are two groups of people arguing over the definition of "assault rifle" Group A does not like guns, and does not want guns in the hands of private citizens wants to give semi-automatics a scary name, and then there is Group B that appreciates guns, knows how to operate them safely, and in general has more knowledge on guns than group A wants to use the proper term for a semi-automatic rifle, rather give in and say fine call it a assault rifle.

You go ahead and call a cat a dog while I call a dog a dog, and a cat a cat.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

MaxBuck said:


> First, he didn't restrict his analysis to the police, but included the military. Second, he suggested the populace be empowered to own all "state of the art personal weapons," which would include such toys as RPG launchers, bazookas, submachine guns and grenades. Then he backtracked and placed his own, highly subjective and capricious, limitation onto the putative "right."


Oops, I missed the military part. My bust.

I still think that the Founders would have been absolutely fine with tight regulation of handguns, but probably not with banning them. They really are not effective weapons for the battleground.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

It's a pug. No, it's not.



Dmontez said:


> The department of treasury thing only helps my point that they are NOT easy to come by. I use a mid 90's dictionary for definitions. I see definitions changing all too often to pacify the PC crowd.
> 
> So, what you are telling me is that there are two groups of people arguing over the definition of "assault rifle" Group A does not like guns, and does not want guns in the hands of private citizens wants to give semi-automatics a scary name, and then there is Group B that appreciates guns, knows how to operate them safely, and in general has more knowledge on guns than group A wants to use the proper term for a semi-automatic rifle, rather give in and say fine call it a assault rifle.
> 
> You go ahead and call a cat a dog while I call a dog a dog, and a cat a cat.


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> It's a pug. No, it's not.


Instead of offering any kind of meaningful dialogue you come up with this gem. Thanks for that, really.


----------



## tocqueville (Nov 15, 2009)

Dmontez said:


> Just going to throw this out here. I am sick and tired of people changing the definitions of words, and terms to make their arguments valid.
> 
> Assault Rifle:
> a rapid-fire, magazine-fed *automatic* rifle designed for infantry use.
> ...


Fun fact, at least if we believe Wikipedia: The assault rifle was a German invention, the term being a translation of the German Sturmgewehr, which allegedly Hitler himself coined (Wiki, to its credit, notes that this is just a story...maybe true, maybe not).


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

MaxBuck said:


> You've just made two completely contradictory arguments here.


I said personal weapons in 1. Different from 2.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> It's a pug. No, it's not.


If so many people disagree that you have a pug, perhaps it is time to either get better proof or consider the possibility that you don't actually have a pug.


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

vpkozel said:


> I have never considered the second part of your point before and I agree with it as to why we are not actually allowed to own tanks, but historically militias DID own cannons - which are crew served and require practice to use safely. And the accountability piece is also covered by the well regulated phrase.
> 
> So, I guess that I am asking why shouldn't a proven responsible party with the ability to use it correctly be allowed to buy a tank for his militia? I don't have an answer, nor am I advocating for it, but I think it is a good question.


You can buy a demilitarized tank. No guns. You can get the machine guns with special licenses, but not the main gun. The main gun can launch explosive ordinance, is crew served, and it is very difficult to predict its effect and assign accountability and justification.


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

vpkozel said:


> If so many people disagree that you have a pug, perhaps it is time to either get better proof or consider the possibility that you don't actually have a pug.


My friend 32rnr owns pugs. Trust me, I know.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Militia aren't armed with pistols.


You are mistaken as to what the term, "bear arms" refers, I believe...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> You are mistaken as to what the term, "bear arms" refers, I believe...


I don't think that I am. It was never intended to refer to side arms. For military purposes, pistols are a throwaway item.

But what do you think "bear arms" means?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Liberty Ship said:


> You can buy a demilitarized tank. No guns. You can get the machine guns with special licenses, but not the main gun. The main gun can launch explosive ordinance, is crew served, and it is very difficult to predict its effect and assign accountability and justification.


Tank crews in the military are not exactly rocket scientists. And accountability and justification is not really that hard either - especially in a smaller group.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> My friend 32rnr owns pugs. Trust me, I know.


Neither of us was referring to his actual dog.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> You do agree that the Constitution establishes the courts and gives them jurisdiction over the Constitution and all laws created under it though, right?


The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction regarding some issues, and appellate jurisdiction in others. It doesn't have "jurisdiction over the Constitution."

Please understand that the concept of "judicial review" is controversial. First of all, do we mean the power to "apply" the law, or to "interpret" it - there's a world of difference, I believe. Umpires apply the rules of baseball; they don't interpret them (for the most part) - to do so would be baseball-destroying chaos. Assuming the Court has power in this realm, is it an advisory power, or the power to negate laws?

In addition, some of the Founders assumed the Court would have some sort of role here, others believed it was a State function to determine constitutionality. George Washington thought it was an executive function! No doubt some neglected to think about it at all. Many thought that Article III was silent on the issue, while others believed that the power to determine constitutionality of federal laws could be teased out of the text, and it would be destructive to the notions of federalism, separation of powers, and checks/balances (probably the most detailed treatment was by the Anti-Federalist writer "Brutus" - perhaps the pseudonym of the brilliant Robert Yates of New York - which I'll be ingesting this summer).

The issue is far more complex than some would believe, but I'll say it again: when the federal government gets to decide the powers of the federal government, tyranny/autocracy is present. Not only has the Court done this, it has usurped the powers of the States as well, via "judicial review." Clearly, there's no power in the Constitution to do that, as the concept was defeated in the Philadelphia Convention...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> How is it that you seem to know so well what people who lived hundreds of years ago did and thought? You can't know that. No one can know that. All you can know is what you can garner from reading what people wrote, which is, I would submit, considerably less than encyclopedic. I don't know the precise percentages, because no one can know the precise percentages, but a pretty fair number of folks back then were illiterate and so could not leave behind any record of what they did and thought.
> 
> Regardless...
> 
> Someone please remind me what well-regulated militia had the shooter in South Carolina, the Sandy Hook guy, the Columbine guys, the Virginia Tech guy, the Aurora guy, etc., as members.


Common sense tells me that in order to protect oneself and to hunt, a weapon would be useful. This is especially true of a population that was overwhelmingly rural - no local Stop and Shops around. I'm going to guess that they had tables and chairs, too, despite the extant "illiteracy." You seem to want to find controversy where none exists...

Please don't distort the meaning of the Second Amendment; if you wish to learn more, research it, but don't play semantical games...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dmontez said:


> Instead of offering any kind of meaningful dialogue you come up with this gem. Thanks for that, really.


You're welcome.

My point was, there are certain points, sometimes, where people who cannot defend, or refute, a position instead resort to diversionary tactics. In legal circles, it is called a shiny balloon--"Pay no attention to what you just saw on the video and heard from 16 sworn witnesses, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, instead look at what I've got over here, the defendant's high school transcript showing that he got an A in home economics!" Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that he's charged with butchering four people with a meat cleaver. It's a shiny balloon, hoisted to distract attention from the essential facts/elements in hopes that the debate will shift from a blood bath to the defendant's cooking skills. And that's what we have going on here.

Instead of addressing the OP's post, some folk would prefer to derail the essential point into tired debates over what constitutes an assault rifle, presumably so that the essential and original point will be forgotten. In this case, it appears that those who must, by necessity, grasp at straws are grasping at the term "protection rifle" that is contained in the original post. Classic shiny balloon, which ignores entirely what was said in hopes of bogging things down to the point that, well, it becomes necessary for someone to point out that a pug, at the end of the day, is a pug.

This said, still waiting to hear someone, anyone, point out any point at all in the OP's link that is incorrect. Anyone?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Tiger said:


> *Common sense* tells me that in order to protect oneself and to hunt, a weapon would be useful. This is especially true of a population that was overwhelmingly rural - no local Stop and Shops around. I'm going to guess that they had tables and chairs, too, despite the extant "illiteracy." You seem to want to find controversy where none exists...
> 
> Please don't distort the meaning of the Second Amendment; if you wish to learn more, research it, but don't play semantical games...


Common sense. Indeed.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Just curious: Why aren't you on the Supreme Court?



Tiger said:


> The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction regarding some issues, and appellate jurisdiction in others. It doesn't have "jurisdiction over the Constitution."
> 
> Please understand that the concept of "judicial review" is controversial. First of all, do we mean the power to "apply" the law, or to "interpret" it - there's a world of difference, I believe. Umpires apply the rules of baseball; they don't interpret them (for the most part) - to do so would be baseball-destroying chaos. Assuming the Court has power in this realm, is it an advisory power, or the power to negate laws?
> 
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

vpkozel said:


> Neither of us was referring to his actual dog.


It's not a pug. Yes, it is. No, it's not.

These voices in my head. I get so confused...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> Oops, I missed the military part. My bust.
> 
> I still think that the Founders would have been absolutely fine with tight regulation of handguns, but probably not with banning them. They really are not effective weapons for the battleground.


The Founders specifically wanted the federal government out of the arms-infringement business, hence the Second Amendment. States, on the other hand, had the power to regulate arms. This concept is no different than First Amendment protections...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I don't think that I am. It was never intended to refer to side arms. For military purposes, pistols are a throwaway item.
> 
> But what do you think "bear arms" means?


From Wikipedia:
In the United States, with an English common law tradition, a long-standing common law right to keep and bear arms has been recognized as existing prior even to the creation of a written national constitution.[SUP][13][/SUP] In the United States, the right to keep and bear arms is also an enumerated right specifically protected by the U.S. Constitution and many state constitutions[SUP][14][/SUP] such that people have a personal right to own arms for individual use, and a right to bear these same arms both for personal protection and for use in a militia.[SUP][15][/SUP] The right to keep and bear arms is codified in the Second Amendment to the United States Constitution, which reads:
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.[SUP][16][/SUP]​


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Just curious: Why aren't you on the Supreme Court?


Just curious - why are you so argumentative and condescending?


----------



## Shaver (May 2, 2012)

Thank you Captain Obvious.



vpkozel said:


> Neither of us was referring to his actual dog.


----------



## SG_67 (Mar 22, 2014)

Just for historical perspective, in those days it wasn't uncommon for men to enter military service with their own weapons as opposed the system we have now. Particularly a militia, which was thought of as regional and controlled by the state.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

Tiger said:


> The Founders specifically wanted the federal government out of the arms-infringement business, hence the Second Amendment. States, on the other hand, had the power to regulate arms. This concept is no different than First Amendment protections...


Did they? Did they really? Given that the Founding Fathers can often be seen to be contradictory in their views on a given subject, I find it surprising that so many people can be so absolute in what the Founding Fathers believed and wanted. It's rather like people using the Bible to justify their own view. 
Otherwise, as the chap in the film said. The Second Amendment is an amendment. Surely an Amendment can be amended?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Tiger said:


> Just curious - why are you so argumentative and condescending?


Hilarious.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Hate quoting myself, but...



32rollandrock said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> My point was, there are certain points, sometimes, where people who cannot defend, or refute, a position instead resort to diversionary tactics. In legal circles, it is called a shiny balloon--"Pay no attention to what you just saw on the video and heard from 16 sworn witnesses, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, instead look at what I've got over here, the defendant's high school transcript showing that he got an A in home economics!" Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that he's charged with butchering four people with a meat cleaver. It's a shiny balloon, hoisted to distract attention from the essential facts/elements in hopes that the debate will shift from a blood bath to the defendant's cooking skills. And that's what we have going on here.
> 
> ...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> You're welcome.
> 
> My point was, there are certain points, sometimes, where people who cannot defend, or refute, a position instead resort to diversionary tactics. In legal circles, it is called a shiny balloon--"Pay no attention to what you just saw on the video and heard from 16 sworn witnesses, ladies and gentlemen of the jury, instead look at what I've got over here, the defendant's high school transcript showing that he got an A in home economics!" Which has nothing at all to do with the fact that he's charged with butchering four people with a meat cleaver. It's a shiny balloon, hoisted to distract attention from the essential facts/elements in hopes that the debate will shift from a blood bath to the defendant's cooking skills. And that's what we have going on here.
> 
> ...


I don't think anyone but the comedian in the video used the term "protection rifle"

How did I derail the thread? The video in questions talks about assault rifles, and what he likely meant was a semi-automatic gun, that he wants to give a scary name to, so he called it an assault rifle. He is wrong. He says the one and only argument for people who are for the 2nd amendment is "f--- off, I like guns" that a gun cannot protect you, well here again that is also false. https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/.

His point it seems to me, is that the world is more utopian without guns, yet he was tied up had his head split open, and girlfriend raped by a guy with a machete. Bad people do bad things and will find a way to do harm. The only thing that stops a bad guy with a gun is running out of victims, or a good guy with a gun. How is that so hard to understand?

I could also argue that you sir, are the one whom is trying to derail the thread since you cannot defend your position.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Hilarious.


But accurate nonetheless...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Shaver said:


> Thank you Captain Obvious.


My apologies. It has been a long week already. So many parries of ad hominem attacks and poor logic have left me weary. I shall endevour to do better in the fuuture


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Hate quoting myself, but...


Sure. How about we start with the little issue of guns not being banned in Australia?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

How about we deal with what he says? Can anyone, anyone, point out any point that he makes that doesn't make sense? Anyone?

Pretty simple question...



vpkozel said:


> Sure. How about we start with the little issue of guns not being banned in Australia?


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Thank you, Oliver Wendell Holmes.



Tiger said:


> But accurate nonetheless...


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> How about we deal with what he says? Can anyone, anyone, point out any point that he makes that doesn't make sense? Anyone?
> 
> Pretty simple question...


I also hate quoting myself, but I already did that. Again, this is just you trying to derail the thread.



Dmontez said:


> I don't think anyone but the comedian in the video used the term "protection rifle"
> 
> How did I derail the thread? The video in questions talks about assault rifles, and what he likely meant was a semi-automatic gun, that he wants to give a scary name to, so he called it an assault rifle. He is wrong. He says the one and only argument for people who are for the 2nd amendment is "f--- off, I like guns" that a gun cannot protect you, well here again that is also false. https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/.
> 
> ...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> How about we deal with what he says? Can anyone, anyone, point out any point that he makes that doesn't make sense? Anyone?
> 
> Pretty simple question...


That is a different question than what you originally asked. You asked where he was incorrect. That happened in about the 4th sentence.

Incorrect is easily determined. Makes sense is not.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

Chouan said:


> Did they? Did they really? Given that the Founding Fathers can often be seen to be contradictory in their views on a given subject, I find it surprising that so many people can be so absolute in what the Founding Fathers believed and wanted. It's rather like people using the Bible to justify their own view.
> Otherwise, as the chap in the film said. The Second Amendment is an amendment. Surely an Amendment can be amended?


The historical record is voluminous; no need to play a guessing game. Once one understands the very purpose of the American Bill of Rights, the answer to your query will become self-evident. Why lapse into skepticism when it isn't called for? I get the feeling that some here are so politically driven that they habitually seek to impose a revisionist view on events, documents, et al. I know how difficult it is to ascertain truth, but please, save the arguments for the bevy of things whose meanings are not so easily settled. The Constitution is based on the system of federalism; one cannot understand the document without acknowledging the role of the States in this hybrid system. The Bill of Rights limits federal power in order to protect the rights/powers of the several States and their people. No mystery here!

As I mentioned earlier, of course the Constitution and its amendments can be altered - by another amendment, as per Article V of the document.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

32rollandrock said:


> Thank you, Oliver Wendell Holmes.


I am convinced that you are so blinded by your view of, well, everything, that you can't understand that others possess different views. When you find yourself unable to discuss rationally, you resort to insults. Nice job, Mr. Carville...


----------



## MaxBuck (Apr 4, 2013)

Tiger said:


> The *Founders specifically wanted* the federal government out of the arms-infringement business, hence the Second Amendment.


I'm not certain that the Founding Fathers spoke with so unified a voice as you assert here. Nor that we in the 21st century can so easily ascertain what they "wanted."

Constitutional and Biblical interpretation alike can lead to widely differing opinions, as I'm sure you have experienced. I'm sure you *have* experienced it, since your analyses here have been quite thoughtful and well-informed, whether or not I personally agree with you.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Please check out Post Number 2 and Post Number 6 on this thread. The question has been asked from the very get-go. It has not been addressed by the Shiny Balloon Set.



vpkozel said:


> That is a different question than what you originally asked. You asked where he was incorrect. That happened in about the 4th sentence.
> 
> Incorrect is easily determined. Makes sense is not.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> The U.S. Supreme Court has original jurisdiction regarding some issues, and appellate jurisdiction in others. It doesn't have "jurisdiction over the Constitution."


I am not following you.

What does this phrase mean to you then?

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...."


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dmontez said:


> I also hate quoting myself, but I already did that. Again, this is just you trying to derail the thread.


You, too. Check out Post No. 2 and Post No. 6, plus the OP post. I haven't tried to derail this thread. Not at all.

How much for one of those shiny balloons you have for sale?


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

32rollandrock said:


> Please check out Post Number 2 and Post Number 6 on this thread. The question has been asked from the very get-go. It has not been addressed by the Shiny Balloon Set.





32rollandrock said:


> Some of the language might be naughty, but it is hard to argue against anything that he says.


I argue against the statement that guns have been banned in Australia



32rollandrock said:


> From tragedy comes good comedy.
> 
> Can you point out a single point he makes that is wrong?


He is wrong when he says that guns have been banned in Australia.

These are not opinions, they are facts. Period. Give it up, it ain't a pug.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

MaxBuck said:


> I'm not certain that the Founding Fathers spoke with so unified a voice as you assert here. Nor that we in the 21st century can so easily ascertain what they "wanted."
> 
> Constitutional and Biblical interpretation alike can lead to widely differing opinions, as I'm sure you have experienced. I'm sure you *have* experienced it, since your analyses here have been quite thoughtful and well-informed, whether or not I personally agree with you.


The Founders often disagreed; this is quite true. But in this case, by "Founders" I meant: Many of the leading American statesmen of the day (this is discoverable), the vast majority of the Congress of 1791 (by definition, since two-thirds of each house is needed to approve an amendment to the Constitution) and the members of the State legislatures (since three-fourths of those legislatures are necessary to ratify an amendment). This isn't interpretation of the "Founders" thinking, but rather a cataloging of where they stood on this particular issue, as evidenced by the ultimate passage of the Second Amendment.

If anyone believes I've used the term "founders" too cavalierly, I apologize. Trying to encapsulate certain thoughts with the necessary brevity for this forum often leads to shortcuts/laziness, and I can be as guilty as anyone!


----------



## Dmontez (Dec 6, 2012)

32rollandrock said:


> You, too. Check out Post No. 2 and Post No. 6, plus the OP post. I haven't tried to derail this thread. Not at all.
> 
> How much for one of those shiny balloons you have for sale?


For the 3rd time, I have already debunked the OP, and you. You cannot seem to accept that. So now it is your turn. Please tell me how I have not proven that the comedian is wrong? as well as Vpkozels "Guns are not banned in Australia."

32rnr I have called you out on many occasions for your blatant lies, and dodging inconvenient truths. Here is your chance to finally make a point that is not about a pug.



Dmontez said:


> I don't think anyone but the comedian in the video used the term "protection rifle"
> 
> How did I derail the thread? The video in questions talks about assault rifles, and what he likely meant was a semi-automatic gun, that he wants to give a scary name to, so he called it an assault rifle. He is wrong. He says the one and only argument for people who are for the 2nd amendment is "f--- off, I like guns" that a gun cannot protect you, well here again that is also false. https://www.cnn.com/2013/01/10/us/home-invasion-gun-rights/.
> 
> ...


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Really, it's a pug. Trust me.



Dmontez said:


> For the 3rd time, I have already debunked the OP, and you. You cannot seem to accept that. So now it is your turn. Please tell me how I have not proven that the comedian is wrong? as well as Vpkozels "Guns are not banned in Australia."
> 
> 32rnr I have called you out on many occasions for your blatant lies, and dodging inconvenient truths. Here is your chance to finally make a point that is not about a pug.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> I am not following you. What does this phrase mean to you then?
> 
> "The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...."


It is one of the vexing questions about Article III! It is often criticized for being far too vague, and scholars have clashed over it for two centuries. What is "judicial power"? What types of cases could arise arise under the Constitution? What power is wielded by the Court - advisory or the power to actually negate federal legislation? Must the executive enforce a judicial decision? What if the executive didn't?

The Constitution is a product of compromise, and while the mass of it is approachable to most of us, there are some puzzling aspects to it. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists slugged it out over many substantive issues, but also over painstaking details and nuances.

Like I wrote earlier, I'm going to turn to "Brutus" for help!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> It is one of the vexing questions about Article III! It is often criticized for being far too vague, and scholars have clashed over it for two centuries. What is "judicial power"? What types of cases could arise arise under the Constitution? What power is wielded by the Court - advisory or the power to actually negate federal legislation? Must the executive enforce a judicial decision? What if the executive didn't?
> 
> The Constitution is a product of compromise, and while the mass of it is approachable to most of us, there are some puzzling aspects to it. The Federalists and Anti-Federalists slugged it out over many substantive issues, but also over painstaking details and nuances.
> 
> Like I wrote earlier, I'm going to turn to "Brutus" for help!


But it isn't vexing.

Can you think of a legal case that would arise neither under the Constitution nor a law of the US? And don't say state laws, because we are not talking about them right now.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> But it isn't vexing.
> 
> Can you think of a legal case that would arise neither under the Constitution nor a law of the US? And don't say state laws, because we are not talking about them right now.


There are plenty of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that perhaps should not have been accepted by the Court in the first place...the Constitution is not designed to address every single issue; much falls outside of its purview.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> There are plenty of cases decided by the U.S. Supreme Court that perhaps should not have been accepted by the Court in the first place...the Constitution is not designed to address every single issue; much falls outside of its purview.


While I tend to agree, I am not talking about plenty of cases. I am talking specifically about cases that require Constitutional questions to be answered or ruled on.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> While I tend to agree, I am not talking about plenty of cases. I am talking specifically about cases that require Constitutional questions to be answered or ruled on.


I apologize; I'm not sure what you're asking me...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> I apologize; I'm not sure what you're asking me...


No worries - we are pretty deep into the geeky weeds, lol

I agree that there are many cases that the USSC has taken on - especially in the past 80 years that stretch the original intent, but to some extent they have been forced into that position.

But none of those instances include cases where the USSC is either

A) making rulings on the Constitution itself and its power (I generally say interpret)
B) making rulings on US laws (assuming that they make their way up through the Federal system)

Both of those are clearly given to the courts in Article 3.

So, if you agree with those - then you cannot then say that the USSC is not empowered to perform judicial review.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> No worries - we are pretty deep into the geeky weeds, lol
> 
> I agree that there are many cases that the USSC has taken on - especially in the past 80 years that stretch the original intent, but to some extent they have been forced into that position.
> 
> ...


I don't agree that the Court has the power you list in A), but perhaps I'd need to know specifically to what type of rulings you're referring. As far as B) goes, is deciding a case the same thing as deciding on the particulars of a law? It's one thing for an umpire to make a call based on a baseball rule; it's something else entirely for an umpire to invalidate the rule/cease to enforce it.

My instinct keeps telling me that courts should apply law, not "interpret" it, for such interpretations invariably lead to bias. If a federal law is unconstitutional, why shouldn't the executive branch and the States have the right to intercede? Even if the Court believes a law to be unconstitutional, how can they enforce that decision if the other branches do not wish to acquiesce?

I believe there are inter-branch difficulties inherent in the Constitution, and we've seen a bunch of them fleshed out over the course of two+ centuries...


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> I don't agree that the Court has the power you list in A), but perhaps I'd need to know specifically to what type of rulings you're referring.


How can you not?

"The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...."[

If it doesn't, who does. The only other argument would be that they just somehow forgot to include anything about this, which makes no sense and also has no factual evidence.


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> How can you not? The judicial power shall extend to all cases, in law and equity, arising under this Constitution, the laws of the United States...."[
> 
> If it doesn't, who does. The only other argument would be that they just somehow forgot to include anything about this, which makes no sense and also has no factual evidence.


You wrote, "making rulings on the Constitution itself and its power (I generally say interpret)" - again, it's one thing to decide a case based on what the Constitution says; it's something else to make rulings about what the Constitution is and what it says. Perhaps I misunderstand your question, and maybe we are too "deep into the weeds"...

You would think that something as presumably important as judicial review would be explicitly delegated, but it isn't, leaving us ("us" in the broadest sense possible!) to founder. A product of compromise, and far from perfect, is the document. Should've been amended to add the power of judicial review, if that was what the vast majority thought...but it wasn't.

Jefferson believed that the States as creators of the Constitution should be the ones to determine constitutionality; Washington believed the chief executive should do so. Others thought the Court should do it. I'm in good company in my ignorance and confusion!


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Tiger said:


> You wrote, "making rulings on the Constitution itself and its power (I generally say interpret)" - again, it's one thing to decide a case based on what the Constitution says; it's something else to make rulings about what the Constitution is and what it says. Perhaps I misunderstand your question, and maybe we are too "deep into the weeds"...




A case based on the Constitution would not need to go to the USSC because there would be no question on the guidance needed. It is precisely that the situation occurred when the decision was not clear that we had Marbury v Madison - and since most of the Founders were involved in that case, I think it is safe to assume that they knew the back story of the conversations they had had just a few years before.



> You would think that something as presumably important as judicial review would be explicitly delegated, but it isn't, leaving us ("us" in the broadest sense possible!) to founder. A product of compromise, and far from perfect, is the document. Should've been amended to add the power of judicial review, if that was what the vast majority thought...but it wasn't.


I think it is in Art. 3 Sec 2. - and more importantly, so does the USSC. I have never heard or read anyone question the idea of judicial review.



> Jefferson believed that the States as creators of the Constitution should be the ones to determine constitutionality; Washington believed the chief executive should do so. Others thought the Court should do it. I'm in good company in my ignorance and confusion!


Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting as he was in France at the time of the and Washington had little to do with the convention, although he was there. But I would be interested to learn the documents where they said these things.


----------



## Chouan (Nov 11, 2009)

vpkozel said:


> I argue against the statement that guns have been banned in Australia
> He is wrong when he says that guns have been banned in Australia.


He is wrong in detail but not in overall sense or effect. 
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia 
It is easy to quibble over unimportant details in order to distract from the overall message. As has been raised before, it is the "shiny balloon" ploy.


----------



## vpkozel (May 2, 2014)

Chouan said:


> He is wrong in detail but not in overall sense or effect.
> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gun_laws_in_Australia
> It is easy to quibble over unimportant details in order to distract from the overall message. As has been raised before, it is the "shiny balloon" ploy.


His entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. The only shiny balloon is the one that he, 32rnr, and you are using.

From your link:



> State laws regulate the ownership, possession and use of firearms in Australia. These laws were largely aligned in 1996 by the National Firearms Agreement. Anyone wishing to possess or use a firearm must have a firearms licence and, with some exceptions, be over the age of 18. Owners must have secure storage for their firearms.


Every legal gun in America requires a registration and I think that they are required to be stored securely (but I am not a gun owner, so I am not 100% sure on that). Regardless, the storage issue is not central to the topic as I am unaware of anyone claiming that stolen guns are the heart of the issue.

Quibble over the details, lol. Unless one wants to reach conclusions independent of facts, the details are a wee bit important.....


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

OK, I trusted the guy to be accurate and it turns out that he wasn't entirely accurate. Australia did not, in fact, ban firearms. This said, they went a lot further than could ever happen here, given the NRA's stranglehold on Congress. Over the protests of gun owners, more than 600,000 weapons were taken out of circulation by the Australian government. You are wrong in that laws here require secure storage. That is true in some jurisdictions, yes, but not others. Way too many children--look what I found!--end up dead as a result.

So that we might all be on the same page regarding laws in Australia, here are some articles that, I think, make it pretty clear:

https://www.csmonitor.com/World/Asi...rn-from-Australia-s-gun-control-laws/(page)/2

This one also includes gun control measures in Japan, Canada and Britain: https://www.businessinsider.com/canada-australia-japan-britain-gun-control-2013-1

This is a summary of research that shows that gun violence dramatically declined in Australia after 1996, when the gun-control measures took effect. The author also concludes that about one million guns, not 600,000, were removed from circulation by the government and that many gun owners were not compensated: https://www.gunpolicy.org/firearms/region/cp/australia

And so Chouan, I think, is correct. Even though firearms have not been banned in Australia, gun violence has declined significantly since the Australian government passed tough gun control laws that include strict penalties for illegal gun ownership.

Moving along, I'm constantly amazed by the idiocy--yes, I said idiocy--of so many people who own firearms, and I think that the video in the OP doesn't go far enough. Take this American sniper fellow. Hey, here's a nifty way to treat PTSD in war veterans--we'll take them to the shooting range! He was concerned enough about the schizophrenic vet with PTSD who ended up shooting him dead with his own weapon that, en route, he told a third guy in the car that the soon-to-be killer was nuts, and the guy, agreeing, texted back to watch his back. And then they kept on going instead of one of them feigning illness as an excuse to turn around--they're the ones who should have stood trial to determine their sanity. Then there's the nine-year-old girl with no apparent firearms experience whose parents thought it would be fine to let her start out with an Uzi submachine gun. Ended up shooting and killing the instructor, who also didn't have sufficient common sense to say "Not a chance--this is the dumbest thing I've ever heard of." And let's not forget politicians. In the Illinois legislature, there is a senator who has publicly declared that the Second Amendment is a God-given right.



vpkozel said:


> His entire argument is based on a logical fallacy. The only shiny balloon is the one that he, 32rnr, and you are using.
> 
> From your link:
> 
> ...


----------



## Tiger (Apr 11, 2010)

vpkozel said:


> A case based on the Constitution would not need to go to the USSC because there would be no question on the guidance needed. It is precisely that the situation occurred when the decision was not clear that we had Marbury v Madison - and since most of the Founders were involved in that case, I think it is safe to assume that they knew the back story of the conversations they had had just a few years before.
> 
> I think it is in Art. 3 Sec 2. - and more importantly, so does the USSC. I have never heard or read anyone question the idea of judicial review.
> 
> Jefferson had nothing to do with the drafting as he was in France at the time of the and Washington had little to do with the convention, although he was there. But I would be interested to learn the documents where they said these things.


1) "Most of the Founders" were not involved in the Marbury case. Unsure of your ultimate point
2) "Judicial review" - the supposed power to declare a federal (and now State) law unconstitutional - does not appear in the text of the Constitution. Some have tried to tease it out of the text, but it isn't explicitly there. Something so important should have been explicit, don't you agree?
3) The Supreme Court determining that it has the power of judicial review is autocratic. Much like a president deciding that he/she could go to war whenever the mood strikes
4) One need not be a member of the Philadelphia Convention to opine on the concept of judicial review; not sure why you seek to invalidate so many opinions on this topic
5) Again, the topic is complex, and there's a lot out there on it. I plan to read Brutus and others this summer
6) See Jefferson's remarks about the Marbury case over the course of subsequent years - easily found online


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Dude, you should be on the Supreme Court!



Tiger said:


> 1) "Most of the Founders" were not involved in the Marbury case. Unsure of your ultimate point
> 2) "Judicial review" - the supposed power to declare a federal (and now State) law unconstitutional - does not appear in the text of the Constitution. Some have tried to tease it out of the text, but it isn't explicitly there. Something so important should have been explicit, don't you agree?
> 3) The Supreme Court determining that it has the power of judicial review is autocratic. Much like a president deciding that he/she could go to war whenever the mood strikes
> 4) One need not be a member of the Philadelphia Convention to opine on the concept of judicial review; not sure why you seek to invalidate so many opinions on this topic
> ...


----------



## Liberty Ship (Jan 26, 2006)

32rollandrock said:


> How about we deal with what he says? Can anyone, anyone, point out any point that he makes that doesn't make sense? Anyone?
> 
> Pretty simple question...


He said, referring to Port Arthur, that "in 1996 Australia had the biggest massacre on earth; still has not been beaten." (For some reason that made his audience laugh.) I will grant him that he is talking about mass shootings by deranged gunmen and ignore happenings in Africa or Beslan. But even cutting him that slack, Port Arthur did not come close to Norway. Port Arthur had 35 killed and 23 wounded. Norway had 75 killed and a couple of hundred wounded in 2011.


----------



## 32rollandrock (May 1, 2008)

Liberty Ship said:


> He said, referring to Port Arthur, that "in 1996 Australia had the biggest massacre on earth; still has not been beaten." (For some reason that made his audience laugh.) I will grant him that he is talking about mass shootings by deranged gunmen and ignore happenings in Africa or Beslan. But even cutting him that slack, Port Arthur did not come close to Norway. Port Arthur had 35 killed and 23 wounded. Norway had 75 killed and a couple of hundred wounded in 2011.


I had thought that same thing and attributed it to when the performance was taped. If it was taped after the Norway massacre, well, I guess he's just wrong about everything, then.


----------

