T Nation

Trump: The First 100 Days


#4036

Which completely contradicts you’re entire argument.

You’re saying they wrote an amendment that only applies to state funded and state armed regulars, which would be a standing army in essence, to stop the feds from having one.

You’re saying they wrote an amendment to create many standing armies rather than one?

right… I’m sure that was the great plan. “Hey guys, we dont’ want a strong federal government, so let’s write this amendment that creates a bunch of state controlled armies with no common orders or tactics, and lets write this part about the people keeping and bearing arms, but really we’ll only mean certain people, and only when the government says so.”

Really?


#4037

Correct. Hence the meme.

If you can’t present your argument in common language, you’ve already lost.

Of course this is the internet, so quoting a biased OP-ED is apparently evidence now too.


#4038

Ok, let me make sure I don’t misunderstand - you’re saying that the Framers intended, since the beginning of the Republic, that individuals have the constitutional (and therefore national) right to walk through any American city armed with the firearm of their choosing, so they can be ready at any time to repel foreign invaders or their own government if it becomes tyrannical (and local criminals, by extension)…

…and the city and that city’s state can’t infringe upon that individual’s right to carry those arms, it being a nationalized right?

That is what the Framers intended with the 2A?

Is that your position?


#4039

Uh, are you unfamiliar with how state militia were mustered for action?


#4040

What’s especially interesting about this notion (ie, that the 2A was intended to facilitate citizens overthrowing the government) is that the Framers specifically included the crime of Treason in the Constitution. So according to this way of thinking, the FFs provided a mechanism (the 2A) for committing treason, while simultaneously making treason a crime. Sure, that makes sense…


#4041

Not sure that this was all that rare in the first place, but it seems that is the natural and obvious result of an individual right to arms, yes.

Yeah.

Yeah.

This part is moot. Whether they intended for States to be able to nullify it is irrelevant, as it’s played out the Federal government is final say.

They certainly didn’t intend for only regulars to have access to weapons while being drilled by the State.

Otherwise, you know that whole second clause and all.


#4042

Yes, actually no one was allowed to have any weapons for any reason except those provided by the state, during drilling, assuming they were a regular…

Defense of self and liberty =/= over throwing one’s government. While dissolution of the tyrannical state will be the result of the successful defense, it’s still a defense of natural rights, not an offensive attack on an otherwise just government.


#4043

Why am I not surprised the man who refuses to answer the simple question is purposely conflating defense with overthrowing the government…

I shouldn’t be, given the tortured logic of “only regulars in the state’s army were granted the right of firearm ownership in the second”.


#4044

This is galactically wrong as a matter of both law and history. If Virginia passed a law in 1798 saying you can’t carry your rifle in the town square, you’d have zero recourse in court claiming a violation of the 2A.

The 2A didn’t prohibit states from doing whatever they wanted re: possession and carrying of firearms prior to the Civil War. There was no national right - which is precisely why there had to be a McDonald case in addition to Heller - the right had to be incorporated by judges through the 14th Amendment.

What you contend simply isn’t true. The Framers had no such intention. Period.


#4045

Personally, I believe the 2nd Amendment was written to prohibit national gun laws(yet…we have many). I don’t think it was intended to prevent states from passing gun laws(I believe the same applies to the 1st, 2nd, 3rd, 4th, etc.), but the states’ fears of the central government took care of that. How nice that national gun laws/bans have been upheld while local gun laws have been struck down.


#4046

Okay. This doesn’t mean that the 2nd doesn’t grant federal protection of the individual right. And you make this point later, which I also addressed, but you ignored for some odd reason.

Right, which I flat out said. For your review:

It doesn’t matter, today, whether a State could over rule the 2nd. The FF’s were obviously okay with a State being able to do so, and maybe preferred it on this particular amendment.

All that said, it doesn’t make the 2nd NOT an individual right. It just means the Federal Government had less power, and the people less recourse in their state if they were pissed.

None of this says:

Is untrue. It simple means the Federal Government doesn’t have final say. However, as they wrote it, the above quote is in fact true.

Whether or not they had the intention on the state level, which is the what you’re trying to crowbar in here as a way of saying I’m wrong, is moot.

I’m talking about what the 2nd says. And in today’s context of the Fed is King, what it says trumps what the states say. That the latter was reversed in 1801 doesn’t change the former.


#4047

States can’t overrule the US Constitution, that’s the entire point.

And no, the FFs weren’t ok with a State overruling a constitutional provision - states don’t have “permission” to overrule parts of the Constitution they don’t like.

Seriously, man.


#4048

I didn’t ignore it - the point is, if the 2A granted a right, it wasn’t a right as against a state.[quote=“countingbeans, post:4046, topic:223365”]
All that said, it doesn’t make the 2nd NOT an individual right. It just means the Federal Government had less power, and the people less recourse in their state if they were pissed.
[/quote]

You’re getting confused - if there is a national right available everywhere in all contexts (a constitutional right) then states can’t pass a law infringing that right (fed trumps state). It isn’t a matter of nullification.[quote=“countingbeans, post:4046, topic:223365”]
It simple means the Federal Government doesn’t have final say. However, as they wrote it, the above quote is in fact true.
[/quote]

More confusion. Yes, they do, if it is a constitutional and national right. That’s entirely the point - the final say has been taken away from the states and protected in the BOR.

That didn’t happen.[quote=“countingbeans, post:4046, topic:223365”]
Whether or not they had the intention on the state level, which is the what you’re trying to crowbar in here as a way of saying I’m wrong, is moot.
[/quote]

No, it isn’t because what good is your right to walk around with a firearm if a state takes it away? Of course the intent of the FFs re: states matters - because that tellscus whether the right was meant to truly be a national right or not.


#4049

We don’t have to digress down the 2A path any further, but here is the issue that pervades these arguments - political philosophy ain’t a substitute for law and actual history, and the 2A is more defined by the latter, not the former.


#4050

I mean… This would be much more compelling if we weren’t talking about a point in time where the very same courts and “truly a national rights” were ignored if one was black.

I mean, how can a state have a slave when the 5th says “nor be deprived of life, liberty, or property, without due process of law”?

Well I mean, the 8th didn’t happen either… Slavery is cruel and unusual.

It didn’t grant anything. It codified an inherent right.

Again, slavery completely says this isn’t the case in reality.

But I guess the rational that clear and objective language isn’t actually saying what it says, instead these very bright and articulate men actually meant something completely different than the text of the actual amendment, which then contradicts the entire notion of individual liberty and restriction of government, present everywhere else in the document, is the most rational explanation then. Because the same courts that ruled blacks were property said so…

Okay. Fair enough guys you went.

The actual words dont’ mean what they say they mean, they mean the complete opposite actually. Right O.


#4051

So the South was right then?

Because law and history says slavery was fine and dandy. Shit slavery has legal precedence in just about every major human civilization known to man.

Glad the Same Sex Marriage lobby ignored this little bit of advice myself, and fought for the painfully obvious ability to enter into a contract with whomever they wanted, and didn’t focus on how it was defined by law and history.


#4052

Because of original intent. Are you saying we should have “evolved” to grow the protections of 5A to do away with slavery?[quote=“countingbeans, post:4050, topic:223365”]
But I guess the rational that clear and objective language isn’t actually saying what it says, instead these very bright and articulate men actually meant something completely different than the text of the actual amendment, which then contradicts the entire notion of individual liberty and restriction of government, present everywhere else in the document, is the most rational explanation then. Because the same courts that ruled blacks were property said so…

Okay. Fair enough guys you went.

The actual words dont’ mean what they say they mean
[/quote]

Candidly, this is just dumb and a non-sequitur. We’re trying to understand the meaning, and the meaning you say exists doesn’t square with actual law and history.

Language that you say is so ridiculously clear has been wrestled with even by conservative and libertarian legal scholars. Hell no, the language of the 2A isn’t crystal clear and easily applied.

Fact is, if the FFs intended for the 2A to confer a national right, the Justices in the McDonald case wouldn’t have had to “incorporate” it via the 14th Amendment in their decision.


#4053

Nope, but the victims of slavery had at their disposal the right to revolution because of their violations of their natural rights. Absent that exercise, though, the positive law was what it was.


#4054

Good to know that the best way to navigate through these issues is ignore intent and custom and go with “the feels”.


#4055

I’m saying a reading of the 5th clearly outlaws slavery. There is literally nothing remotely questionable there without tortured logic, or seeing Black’s as property.

I’ve pointed out a few things that exist that don’t square with law and history…

No it certainly is, without question. It’s the potential consequences that are the issue.

I’m not arguing it’s unlimited here. (Although I reserve the right to later if I feel I want to for whatever reason.)

Just like the first is pretty damn crystal clear, however you can’t use your speech to incite a riot, use the press to slander Jessie Ventura, or use your religion as a means to persecute a minority.

The second is pretty damn crystal clear. The wrangled logic, and torturing of basic English is all in a response to the simple fact that allowing people to own firearms is frightening, because humans are very imperfect, and well, have a evil strain in the population.

Right, but this response completely ignores the context in which I gave that as an example.

Good to know a direct, and objective modern day example of political theory being the driving force for change of law, rather than resting on the laurels of “law and history” is now “the feels” around here. In fact, without political philosophy being a substitute for law and history the Republicans would likely still be pimping Clinton’s DOMA and trump would have crushed the rest of the GOP field by an even wider margin in the primaries.