GT40s.com Paddock GUNS thread

Status
Not open for further replies.
Rod, If you are an independent, you must wear a 1" lift in your left shoe.
Al, I only buy “zero drop” shoes, so lifts make no logical sense. Also I have so many shoes that if I had to buy a 1” lift for every pair then I’d be broke. Any lift in any shoe would cause spine and back issues, which I don’t want. ;)
 
Al, I only buy “zero drop” shoes, so lifts make no logical sense. Also I have so many shoes that if I had to buy a 1” lift for every pair then I’d be broke. Any lift in any shoe would cause spine and back issues, which I don’t want. ;)
Well that went directly over your head!
 

Randy V

Moderator-Admin
Staff member
Admin
Lifetime Supporter
Food for thought for those that may not remember that Amendments to the United States Constitution are not just merely tweeks to the Constitution, but the first 10 Amendments comprise the document more formally known as our Bill of Rights...
Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

So let’s be careful when we talk about just re-writing any Amendments....
 

Steve

Supporter
Food for thought for those that may not remember that Amendments to the United States Constitution are not just merely tweeks to the Constitution, but the first 10 Amendments comprise the document more formally known as our Bill of Rights...
Bill of Rights - Bill of Rights Institute

So let’s be careful when we talk about just re-writing any Amendments....

Correct! Madison, who was a principle figure in the framing of the constitution, crafted the bill of rights. Many states wanted to refrain from ratifying the constitution until something akin to the bill of rights was included or make their ratification contingent upon the inclusion of a bill of rights. There has never been an amendment altering one of these original 10. The criticism I've heard here regarding the constitutions treatment of the slave issue and the 3/5's rule is completely irrelevant. Keep in mind, in the late 1700's there was no biracial society on earth. Even though slavery was banned in many European countries several decades prior, there were no European countries with a significant black/ex-slave population that required a societal solution. It's not like whites in 1700's England wanted free blacks living in their neighborhood. They did not. From Virginia down to Georgia, slaves significantly outnumbered whites. The "solution" to this issue was far from clear cut at the time. Options including repatriating the blacks to Africa, resettling them in the western territories (modern Kentucky etc) or trying to integrate them into society. The last option was thought to be the bloodiest. Jefferson, in particular, was highly critical of England for "forcing" the planter class to be dependent on slave labor to survive. To be sure, the planter class was dependent on the merchants of England to sell their goods as well as purchase everything they needed to exist from clothes to furniture etc. The merchants in England manipulated the pricing to constantly keep the planter class indebted, making it impossible to economically conceive at the time of discontinuing slavery. In fact, this was Washingtons primary reason for favoring independence prior to 1776. It should be noted he freed his slaves upon his death. At the constitutional convention and in the first 2 decades to follow, the founding fathers kicked the can down the street in order to insure Georgia and South Carolina would vote for ratification. When the northern states did this, they truly thought the problem of slavery would eventually go away within 25 years. Being critical of the founding fathers for not addressing this issue is highly arrogant and presentistic. Further, the founders highly feared a standing army and it's potential to be a coercive influence on the populace. As a result, the right to bear arms was largely as a check on the potential of a federal army and the threat it might pose (as it did in many other countries of the time).

Having said that, and in contrast to Larry's assertions, the Supreme Court has clearly outlined that this right is not without limitations and restrictions. To Rod's point, though, the millennials aren't going to "rescue" the country from old white men and eliminate the 2nd amendment. That's laughable.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Having said that, and in contrast to Larry's assertions, the Supreme Court has clearly outlined that this right is not without limitations and restrictions.
Yeeeeeeeeeeeeeeup...they have...and they came to that assertion thru INTERPRETATION - NOT by quoting/pointing out anything the F.F.'s wrote/said on the topic.

Show me anywhere in the constitution wherein the F.F.s said the right to keep and bear could be limited by government. Forget "interpretation" by the courts - where did THE FOUNDERS grant government the power to do that? Where???

Where did the F.F.s list A-N-Y perquisites, qualifications, exemptions, conditions, limitations, permits, mandatory training classes, 'FEES', interviews with a "special" police officer, etc., etc., that one had to deal with B-E-F-O-R-E he/she could exercise his/her RIGHT to keep and bear? In fact - where is it written that one needs ANYBODY's permission to exercise any RIGHT? One "needs" this-or-that entity's "permission" to exercise a privilege.

HOW could the F.F.s have declared on the one hand that government couldn't pass laws infringing on the right to keep and bear...and yet, on the other, bestow upon government the very power/authority needed to DO exactly that? "Limit" and "restrict" are two of the synonyms contained in the very definition of "infringe".
 
Last edited:
Wouldn’t Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution suffice in this instance? Given that the Second amendment refers specifically to a “well regulated militia”.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Wouldn’t Article 1, section 8 of the US constitution suffice in this instance? Given that the Second amendment refers specifically to a “well regulated militia”.

I assume you're specifically referring to this(?):

"To provide for organizing, arming, and disciplining, the Militia, and for governing such Part of them as may be employed in the Service of the United States, reserving to the States respectively, the Appointment of the Officers, and the Authority of training the Militia according to the discipline prescribed by Congress..."

Short answer: no. The "well regulated militia" straw man was f-i-n-a-l-l-y laid to rest a couple of years back when SCOTUS ruled - correctly IMHO - that the right to keep and bear was an individual right.

You'll note that, in the 2nd Amend, the F.F.s did NOT say, 'the right of militia members to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed'...they said, "the right of the people to keep and bear arms shall not be infringed." (Edit: 'Point being - whereas all militia members obviously belong to the group referred to as "the people", not all of "the people" are militia members. ;))
 
Last edited:
To be fair, what they actually said was this:
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.

Given the sensitivities around the formation of the federal government in the late 1700s you can understand why the second amendment was written. However in 21st century America I fail to see a senario where a state would be forced to raise a militia to defend its self from the federal government. So isn’t the whole second amendment being taken totally out of context? Both historically and contextually?

You call the “well regulated militia” part of the second amendment a “straw man” but isn’t the second amendment to be taken as a whole? It is after all one complete sentence. And if the first part is an irrelevance, doesn’t that make the whole thing irrelevant?

I know I should probably keep out of this, not being American and all, but I find the whole thing fascinating.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
...in 21st century America I fail to see a senario where a state would be forced to raise a militia to defend its self from the federal government. So isn’t the whole second amendment being taken totally out of context? Both historically and contextually?

Short answer: Nope.
 

Steve

Supporter
Larry, the constitution was drafted and intended to be somewhat vague in many seemingly critical areas. Some viewed this as a weakness. Madison initially felt defeated as he wanted more robust language. In time, he (and most others) came to agree that the lack of clearly defined language was a strength that allowed the govt to adapt and grow with the times. It is clear that the language does not clearly state the right to bear arms was an individual right. SCOTUS "clarified" this. They also clarified that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. It is duplicitous to agree with the rulings you like and disagree with the rulings you don't and say they're not supported by the constitution. They've also clarified that even free speech is not unlimited (also not explicitly stated in the Constitution). The strength of the document is its adaptability in changing times. The right to bear arms evolves a bit as times change. Congress writes laws, the SCOTUS interprets them or strikes them down. It is highly unlikely the SCOTUS will change it's interpretation of 2A much based on the current makeup of the court. It's also unlikely that millennials and non-whites elected to congress in the next 10-20 years will change it either.
 

Steve

Supporter
Jon, historically, individual arms were felt to be necessary largely for the purposes of raising a militia (which are state based, not federal). The founding fathers had concerns about standing armies and the potential coercive force they represented. In fact, this was a tremendous problem throughout the revolutionary war as many delegates to the Continental Congress felt the war could be won with (poorly trained, poorly equipped, poorly disciplined, poorly paid, etc) militia and didn't want to fund the army Washington needed. Britain, of course, was using a standing army to attack it's people, the colonists, so there was some aversion to a standing army after independence. The "individualism" of the right is obviously not explicit in the language, but was taken as such and subsequently clarified by the SCOTUS. I live and work in a suburb of an approximately 2.5million people. Part of my job takes me 35 minutes out from the center of the city. About 10% of my patients in this area use their firearms as a means to hunt out of necessity to put food on their table (i.e., not for sport or just because they enjoy hunting). This isn't a sad state of affairs or an unfortunate thing. It's a way of life that has been that way for generations. Our country was initially highly agrarian and in the midwest, much of it still is. So yes, gun ownership is an individual right not just for a militia
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry, the constitution was drafted and intended to be somewhat vague in many seemingly critical areas. Some viewed this as a weakness. Madison initially felt defeated as he wanted more robust language. In time, he (and most others) came to agree that the lack of clearly defined language was a strength that allowed the govt to adapt and grow with the times. It is clear that the language does not clearly state the right to bear arms was an individual right. SCOTUS "clarified" this. They also clarified that the right to bear arms is not unlimited. It is duplicitous to agree with the rulings you like and disagree with the rulings you don't and say they're not supported by the constitution. They've also clarified that even free speech is not unlimited (also not explicitly stated in the Constitution). The strength of the document is its adaptability in changing times. The right to bear arms evolves a bit as times change. Congress writes laws, the SCOTUS interprets them or strikes them down. It is highly unlikely the SCOTUS will change it's interpretation of 2A much based on the current makeup of the court. It's also unlikely that millennials and non-whites elected to congress in the next 10-20 years will change it either.



"It is clear that the language does not clearly state the right to bear arms was an individual right."

If one simply invokes 'The Rule of the Reasonable Man' it's pretty darned clear the F.F.s would have written something like; 'the right of militia members to keep and bear...', instead of, "the right of the >people< to keep and bear..." if they in fact hadn't intended it be an individual right.



"The right to bear arms evolves a bit as times change."

The meaning of "NO law infringing" does not "(evolve) a bit as times change". NO means the same today as it did in the Founder's day. "No" will continue to mean the same.

I say again: if the F.F.s had intended there be any restrictions/conditions/prerequisites/exceptions/limitations, et al, attached to the right to keep and bear - they'd have listed 'em.



"It is duplicitous to agree with the rulings you like and disagree with the rulings you don't and say they're not supported by the constitution."

How? Either they ARE supported by the constitution or they're not. I agree with those that are and disagree with those that aren't. 'Nothing "duplicitous" about it.
 

Steve

Supporter
Larry, and yet there have been numerous laws written that modify to some extent the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has ruled that at least some of these are legal, though not all. Hence, the right is not absolute. You are reading the constitution very concretely, which it was never written as such. You are doing so in order to reinforce your opinion, just as you are choosing to agree with laws you agree with and disagree with laws you don't. It's fine to do that (although acting on your beliefs could render you a criminal) but the basis for your belief is not the constitution, it is only your belief system. There is no support amongst constitutional scholars for your assertions, just as the word "NO" that you keep using in the context of "No law infringing" is no where in the amendment. The amendment 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.

SCOTUS has ruled that the current restrictions on gun ownership do not constitute infringinement. Your insistence on the verbage above is a misrepresentation that supports your beliefs, but is essentially a lie. There is no verbage "No law infringing" or anything of the sort.
 

Scott Calabro

Supporter
Everywhere in the CONUS, and in common language of the day, the word “people” is used in the context of the citizenry or common man.

As an aside, I’d like to know, or at least hear an opine from a SCJ, on how states have the legal ability to require a permit, license etc. to exercise a birthright. IE 2A. I do not need a permit to speak, although some here would like to see that I bet! I believe there are five states that are “constitutional carry” in that, they do not require a permit at all. Interestingly enough, Vermont of all places is one of them.
 

Larry L.

Lifetime Supporter
Larry, and yet there have been numerous laws written that modify to some extent the right to bear arms. The SCOTUS has ruled that at least some of these are legal, though not all. Hence, the right is not absolute. You are reading the constitution very concretely, which it was never written as such. You are doing so in order to reinforce your opinion, just as you are choosing to agree with laws you agree with and disagree with laws you don't. It's fine to do that (although acting on your beliefs could render you a criminal) but the basis for your belief is not the constitution, it is only your belief system. There is no support amongst constitutional scholars for your assertions, just as the word "NO" that you keep using in the context of "No law infringing" is no where in the amendment. The amendment 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.

SCOTUS has ruled that the current restrictions on gun ownership do not constitute infringinement. Your insistence on the verbage above is a misrepresentation that supports your beliefs, but is essentially a lie. There is no verbage "No law infringing" or anything of the sort.



"Lie" my eye. If the right to keep and bear is not to be infringed upon, there can be no law past that infringes upon it...or, IOW, no law infringing.


With regard to, "SCOTUS has ruled that the current restrictions on gun ownership do not constitute infringinement (infringement)": how is it not an infringement for government to say 'you can carry over HERE - but, you can't carry over there?' How is it not an infringement to dictate which arms one can and cannot own/carry? How is it not an infringement to require government's PERMISSION (and a FEE) to carry concealed? I could list a trainload of other examples, but, as I've mentioned before, one either gets the idea or one doesn't.


'Hate to duck out a side door here...but I 'gotta' take the Mrs. out for breakfast! "Mother's Day" and all that, you know?
 

Steve

Supporter
Larry, your interpretation is that any law whatsoever is an infringement. That is an extreme interpretation not shared by the executive, legislative or judicial branches of the government. Under your interpretation, felons, infants, and possibly even fetuses would be able to bear arms because they're all defined (or can be defined) as people. The question, which the constitution intentionally leaves somewhat vague, is what constitutes "infringement". This has been a bit fluid but is unlikely to ever fly to the extreme of an amendment reversing 2A nor the free-for-all approach you favor.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.
Top