Total posts: 1,340
Posted in:
here is some more legislative history that the founders didn't create a right to a gun in the second amendment...
-the phrase "bear arms" historically meant to use a gun in a militia. the preface of the amendment says the purpose regards militias.-“The people”: The founders used this phrase to mean not individual persons, but rather the body politic, the people as a whole. During the ratification debate in Virginia, speakers used the phrase “the people” 50 times when discussing the militia. Every single mention referred to Virginians as a group, not as individuals.-when the constitutional convention occurred, they didn't talk about the need for people to have guns or self defense, all the emphasis was on the need for a militia and the militia langauge in the constitution. the following links are for both this factoid and the next one too.-From 1888, when law review articles first were indexed, through 1959, every single one on the Second Amendment did not conclude that it guaranteed an individual right to a gun-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns-the supreme court historically didn't touch the amendment much, but when they did treated it as pertaining to militias. as recently as the reagan administration, the conservatives said the same thing. it was called a quote unquote "fraud" on the public, to say otherwise, by the conservative chief justice Burger.-drafts of the amendment included a conscioustious objector clause, if you objected to militia duty for religious reasons you can be exempt from a militia. this reinforces that the amendment pertained to militia stuff.-half the population from postal workers to priests were exempt from the militia. this reinforces that it wasn't generally understood that the people informally make up an informal militia. a militia is what a state defines it as.-all the amendments have limits on them. including the first amendment. you can always read into the amendment what exactly it means to infringe on someone's rights, and find other reasonable exceptions
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
i disagree that whether there was gun control matters that much. if they didn't regulate it, that doesn't suddenly mean they passed a constitutiuonal amendment protecting their use. that's a big leap. but regardless, they did regulate it....
-when the amendment was passed they had all kinds of laws regarding who could have guns for all kinds of reasons, along with gun control
-here are some highlights about gun laws during the founding era:
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns
-stand your ground laws were not the law. colonists had the duty to retreat if possible.
-public and concealed carry in populated areas was banned
-anyone who didn't swear loyalty to the state couldn't have a gun. it's far fetched to say as today's conservatives do that guns were protected to protect against the state when back then the state was disarming people they thought were disloyal
-the state disarmed people for the purposes of furthering the government. one of washington's first acts was to disarm the people of queens new york.
-all guns had to be registered and inspected
-some states regulated the use of gun powder
-some cities prohibited firing guns in the city limit
-some cities prohibited loaded firearms in houses
-only one state protected gun rights outside of the militia
-several states rejected the idea of gun rights for self defense or hunting, even though conservatives today claim it was already protected by the second amendmnet
-indians and blacks were barred from having guns
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
so you are saying that the purpose for a constitutional amendment was so obvious that nobody talked about it? riiiiight. they talked about the purpose for all the other amendments, but for some reason everyone is so quick to just imply it for the second amendment.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
i also dont know why you brought up the gun control point. that's only tangent related.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
there's no express evidence that the founding fathers thought that everyone had a right to a gun. there's only evidence that they thought militias were necessary. every argument i've seen that the second amendment protects an individual right to a gun, is always based on implication, implying it through history. though i dont think hardly any of the people making that argument realize they are actually implying it, and how weak that sort of argument is.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@bmdrocks21
yes there are some recent judicial decisions that thought people have a right to a gun, through the second amendment. but this thread is about legislative history during the founding days, so i dont know what point you are trying to make. scalia is an originalist, but for some reason he decided to make a big leap of logic by implying the right based on what evidence is available. originalists should be like conservative chief justice Burger from the Reagan era, who called what scalia thought a "fraud" on the american people... it has no real historical basis to it.
Created:
Posted in:
i have no express legislative evidence of my constitutional right, but it's implied = super weak
Created:
Posted in:
i have a cockamamie idea that the right to a gun is implied in the ninth amendment, an implied right. but since there's no explicit right to a gun as how it's supposedly laid out in the second amendment, the legislature should have more power to regulate it as they see fit. that's how how the legislative history of our country has always been regarding guns, lots of regulation.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@thett3
see above
Created:
Posted in:
"To discard the right of an individual to own a gun is obviously discarding what the founders wanted/assumed "
one of the founders said that a militia consists of most people, but even he acknowledged that future militias might not include everyone. if everyone isn't in a militia, i dont see how we can say they have a right to a gun, based on what evidence we know from founding days. i think the silence is deafening that there isn't any talk that people have a right to a gun... if that's what they thought, it would have been talked about. i think u r admitting that the right to a gun can only be inferred, and that's a big leap of a conclusion to make a constitutional right out of it.
Created:
Posted in:
you guys must not be aware, that in the founding days the phrase "bear arms" almost always meant to use a gun in a militia. so "keep and bear arms" could mean those two things are taken together, not separate ideas. i have a right to have a gun for a milita, basically.
Created:
Posted in:
The Second Amendment of the United States Constitution 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."
that could be read as a collective right, or an individual right. depends on how it's read. so look to history...
all the talk during the early days was about the need for a militia, there's no talk about how everyone has a right to a gun. i challenge anyone to find such evidence. the only thing one can find in those days, is that some people thought it was smart for people to have guns, but this talk is never tied to the second amendment, and it's a different point to make than everyone has a right to a gun. the only way you can find a right to a gun in the early history, is to say it's implied that given most people were in the militia, then they all had a right to a gun including those who werent in the milita too, i guess?
Created:
Posted in:
look at human's wisdom teeth and appendix. outgrowth of evolution. look at the hind leg bones of whales who dont even have legs. i could go on and on with examples of evolution.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
i dont claim to know the laws and sources inside and yet, but it looks like with what's established, there is a serious legal question if Trump were able to use the classified material as he did....
Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 798, it prohibits knowingly disclosing “to an unauthorized person,” publishing, or “us[ing] in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States” a variety of classified information.
The majority ruling in the 1988 Supreme Court case Department of Navy vs. Egan — which addressed the legal recourse of a Navy employee who had been denied a security clearance — addresses this line of authority."The President, after all, is the ‘Commander in Chief of the Army and Navy of the United States’" according to Article II of the Constitution, the court’s majority wrote. "His authority to classify and control access to information bearing on national security ... flows primarily from this constitutional investment of power in the President, and exists quite apart from any explicit congressional grant."Steven Aftergood, director of the Federation of American Scientists Project on Government Secrecy, said that such authority gives the president the authority to "classify and declassify at will."In fact, Robert F. Turner, associate director of the University of Virginia's Center for National Security Law, said that "if Congress were to enact a statute seeking to limit the president’s authority to classify or declassify national security information, or to prohibit him from sharing certain kinds of information with Russia, it would raise serious separation of powers constitutional issues."
what we see, is that trump has default authority to classify at will. but even your article says only that there would be serious constitutional issues if a statute were passed. a statute was passed, which is cited above. we might assume that trump shouldn't be using classified material in a way that is detrimental to the USA. this is of course a judgment call, so executive authority and privilege would be here, but it's at best a murky issue.
also, even if trump was cleared legally for what he did, you have to admit, that it at least sounds like he did the wrong thing by taking and hoarding those documents, right? just because it's legal doesn't mean it's right.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
@Public-Choice
i'm too lazy to do solid research, would be much funner watching you two debate. lolz
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
yes i do acknowledge my points were very fact based. contingent on facts. oromagi was my source on the flynn point. i think this site considers him esteemed enough to be considered credible. he's not always right, though. on the georgia point, my understanding is that trump wanted basically exactly enough votes to turn that election into his favor... there could be no pretense that it's based on actual ballots if he's just trying to game the results like that. i dont pretend that my understanding of the facts are indisputable though. on the classified info stuff, oromagi again has said that there's a process that trump was suppose to go through to declassify the info, and he didn't do it. i changed my opinion, and consider trump to be bound by statutes. maybe he could say executive privilege protects him, as an outgrowth of him being president, but it doesn't look like he didn't commit a crime or obstruction. also, if we just look at the bigger picture, it looks like he was acting in bad faith and as a bad actor- as far as we can tell, anyway. again, i acknowledge all these points are very factually contingent, so.
Created:
-->
@Public-Choice
if it's illegal what trump did with the classified material, and if the material is critical to national security, then of course he should go to jail for it.
he also tried to get georgia election officials to invent votes that didn't exist to over turn the election- i dont think he should go to jail for that, but i would understand if someone thought he should.
i heard from a credible source, though i dont know for sure it's true, that he knowingly put a spy into our government, michael flynn. i dont know if that's prison material, but it might be depending on the specifics.
Created:
-->
@Greyparrot
are you willing to agree that it looks like trump did a bad thing here? u have a tendency of supporting all things trump, or at least not expressly stating when you think he's wrong.
Created:
Codified at 18 U.S.C. § 798, it prohibits knowingly disclosing “to an unauthorized person,” publishing, or “us[ing] in any manner prejudicial to the safety or interest of the United States or for the benefit of any foreign government to the detriment of the United States” a variety of classified information.
that might answer my question
it looks like trump should go to jail, not just for obstruction, but for the underlying crime, mishandling classified material
Created:
-->
@oromagi
are there any constitutional or statutory provisions which say the president doesnt have ultimate authority to change classifications at will? i suppose if a statute says it, it would constrain the president. at first, i was thinking that the president's authority would over ride a statute, and i suppose that's one way to look at it, but i think the whole picture approach is that the president is constrained by statutes- cause that's the way it's designed.
Created:
- Right before the 2020 Election, Trump declared that he declassified every classified document regarding Hillary Clinton's email. Folks immediately began submitting FOIA requests only to discover that it was not true, the President can't just say something is declassified and that makes it declassified. There's a process- NARA has to notified, the registration of the doc has to change, and a NARA official has to come in and modify all the marking on every page. Until NARA has done so, the document is not declassified. There's a whole bunch of agencies who have to have an opportunity to object if a President wants to declassify something. It is true that a President can ask most non top-secret stuff to be declassified and NARA will probably comply but not until a procedure is followed. Trump never even started that procedure for any of these documents.
but if the constitution says that the executive branch equals the president, how can any process that undermines him be constitutional? he's the executive branch, that means any other part of the branch is subordinate to him. so, if he simply says something is declassified, that seems to make it so, right?
Created:
-->
@Ramshutu
what do you think of the argument that trump had effectively declassified the documents, and that the FBI didn't have the right to ask for declassified material? i suppose trump still lied and obstructed, but what happens when you break the law in response to the government breaking the law against you?
Created:
it sounds like the classified documents that he had, he shouldn't have had. i can't say that for sure, cause they won't say what exactly he had.
maybe, trump could be said to have by definition declassified the documents simply by taking them. after all, the constitution says that the president IS the executive branch, so he's the one calling the shots.
the problem, though, is that he probably still shouldn't have had the documents, even if he can get away on a technicality per crimes. so, if he's going to use a technicality to get away with a crime, i dont think anyone should be afraid to charge him with obstruction of justice.
after all, he lied and obstructed the FBI trying to get the documents back. he did that after he was president. i mean, maybe they didn't have a right to ask for documents that weren't ultimately classified? i dont know, maybe, but he shouldn't have had them, and the FBI should have been able to ask for them back.
what do ya'll think? if you support trump in all this, isn't it just based on technicalities? he ultimately did something he shouldn't have, regardless of what the laws are, and you should acknowledge that.
Created:
-->
@oromagi
Why is your title that trump gave compensation off the books when all u have established is that the organization did? I mean I'd think is probably guilty of something, but u haven't established that.
Created:
Posted in:
Very well written article on talking about the limits or lack thereof of space
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
You wouldn't mind if they dropped bus loads of immigrants where u live?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
How is it justified for liberal cities to complain? Doesn't that make them hypocrites?
Created:
-->
@IwantRooseveltagain
So what's your breaking point? How much money r u willing to spend to get them assimilated? How much crime will you tolerate? Why can't not we just help other countries handle them... and they don't have to be poor places but if they were we could still cut checks that they'd be happy with. How is it fair to let them steal jobs from poor people?
You basically ignored everything I said just to take an ideological stand. But if u r ignoring the practical points and the consequences of ur thoughts, that shows yow weak your position is
Created:
Texas is bussing them to NYC and DC. Maybe this will get the dems to finally acknowledge there's a crisis, and to find a way to stop it.
I think dems don't think this through, half thoughts. Instead of catch and release, send them back. Asylum seekers should stay in their home country or Mexico. A wall would help, but there's less radical methods too.
Libs want to think illegals don't hurt anything but that's not true. They need jobs which would be stealing from poor Americans. They don't speak English or have our culture so it would be expensive to teach them English and get them trained. Our cultures would clash which I assume is bad. They say immigrants commit as much crime as Americans, but I would assume if they r desperate, they r more likely to turn criminal. I mean assimilation is possible it'd just be expensive. Also again the job stealing... a bunch of unskilled poor immigrants needing jobs would throw off the Equilibrium our economy has settled into. Job stealing and major struggle. Plus we should follow through on what we say.... if we say not to come here and gave borders what's the point if we just let them come as they please?
Makes more sense to chip in financially to get them in a country that speaks their language and shares culture.
Created:
Posted in:
Ah contrare. The proof is in the pudding. The pudding is in the crust
Created:
Posted in:
most of the time when there's a long list of contradictions, most of the supposed contradictions are really stretched to come to that conclusion. it's best when making the argument, to pick the strongest ones you think are contradictions, and then defend the idea that they are in fact contradictions. most of the time, the people doing that, are grasping at straws. now, i am a christian that believes there are contradictions in the bible... but i also think there are no smoking guns where there is no doubt about whether the example should in fact be considered a contradiction.
but anyways, yeah. you should find a few examples and argue the points.
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@zedvictor4
What do mean that u have taken on board the god principle ?
Created:
Posted in:
It looks like no one changes their mind much. I the think it's rare, but I also suspect folks just don't vocalize much when they r swayed.
I change my mind more than I do a good job expressing
Created:
Posted in:
i would guess his bid for presidency was to stroke his own vanity
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
can a person be not mature the day before they're adult but suddenly mature the day after they're an adult?
do you really think there are no twenty year olds who are as immature as most minors?
i dont know why you're pushing for proof. it's self evident. you're just being obtuse and difficult, for no reason.
Created:
this says brain development doesn't stop until mid twenties often.
but this is beyond brain development. even some fifty year olds are as immature as minors.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
why do you keep asking me about standards and tests?
why would you expect me to scientifically prove that many adults are no more mature than a minor?
can a person be not mature the day before they're adult but suddenly mature the day after they're an adult?
this is such a pointless conversation. proof to me there's no coherent argument to be made against me, a tacit admission by the internet that guns cause more murders than if those guns didnt exist.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
"it is almost impossible to find a ten year old or even a thirteen year old with a more developed prefrontal cortex than an eighteen or twenty five year old"
so younger minors are not as mature as young adults... what's your point? that doesn't mean that all young adults are mature enough to have a gun.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i think u r referring to the factors that i would refer to... "impulse control" or "executive function" "prefrontal cortex development"
again, isn't this self evident?
also, i didn't say smart v dumb, i said mature v immature.
i dont know how u can be so dense to be dragging this out given it's so self evident. what am i missing?
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
isn't it self evident?
some minors are treated as adults based on maturity then it follows that some adults are no better than minors. is it such that the day before his 18th birthday someone might not be mature but then the day after their 18th birthday they are mature?
it's basic logic.
Created:
-->
@ludofl3x
i agree it might not change anything, but i would like all those 'guns are just tools' people to finally acknowledge the common sense and science that says gun are dangerous and increase the murder rate. though, most the people who make that sorta argument probably wouldnt admit to it after the smack down of science and logic in this thread, lolz
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i dont know why you keep thinking i'm referring to a test. i think it's self evident that many adults are no more mature than minors, and thus it is illogical to say so many guns in so many hands doesn't increase the murder rate. A. a minor isn't mature enough to own a gun B. many adults are no more mature than minors C. therefore many adults are not mature enough to own a gun D. if those irresponsible adults have a gun, the rate of murder in our country will increase
irrefutable logic.
Created:
-->
@3RU7AL
i dont know where you got that. my point is that if a minor isnt mature enough to own a gun, many adults are not mature enough to own a gun, and simply having so many guns out there in so many hands, will increase the murder rate. my reason for making that point, is it's common for gun nuts to say guns are simply tools and dont increase the chances someone will get murdered.
Created:
turning 18 doesn't magically make a person a mature adult. we give them the rights of adults, with the consequences of adults, because they should know better. that doesn't mean they will know better.
if a kid isn't mature enough to own a gun, and many adults are no better than kids in their maturity, how does it follow that all adults are mature enough to own a gun?
my point, is the presence of a gun, will cause some people to die who otherwise wouldn't die. this common sense point is at the basis for half the nonsense that gun nuts talk about. "guns dont kill people, people kill people". in fact, guns do kill people. and, it should be common sense that a gun will cause some people to be more likely to kill people.
the science behind this is overwhelming, that the presence of a gun causes murder rate to increase, more here.
but i'm just curious how the gun nuts will wiggle around this kid v adult maturity point.
Created:
Posted in:
I think coal has reading comprehension issues... U would think if the founders gave everyone a right to a gun, they might have mentioned something in the historical record about everyone having a right to a gun.
Created:
it sounds like the site just wasn't managed properly. there has to be a sale or situation that would be acceptable to the previous owner, where the site could be maintained. letting it get shut down benefits no one.
Created:
Posted in:
if a person is a hermit or recluse that doesnt participate in society, maybe they have a claim to not owing society anything or not wanting to pay taxes. anyone who participates in common society owes that government for what it does, in at least some capacity. it's irrational to say otherwise.
"Exactly, because every civilization that came before us has already figured this out."
sums up how obvious this is. the dude arguing against this, is crazy
Created:
Posted in:
-->
@FLRW
I agree that atheists r slightly smarter but u r jumping to too many conclusions based on that idea. The IQ difference is prob too small to draw many conclusions. With that said a baby should be neutral on god and then as they get older should become atheists if they remain ignorant, the default. It takes knowledge and critical thinking to rise above the atheist default. It's understandable that there's so many atheists since knowledge and critical thinking r in short supplyl
Created:
Posted in:
this debate about the role of government reminds me of a family guy episode. peter joins the libertarians and then disbands the government. then, to create order and justice in their new system, they agree to follow some basic rules and everybody chip in for the common good... all without the government!
Created: