Mass shooting at Pulse Nightclub in Orlando Florida: Political Discussion [SPLIT]

[TX-Beau]

You're not arguing constitutional law -- you have yet to cite the Constitution. And since the Constitution plainly says that unless the Constitution assigns a power to Congress, Congress doesn't have that power, pointing to that power in the Constitution is the only place to start.

I know we've grown up in a bastardized understanding of constitutional law where phrases meant to limit the government are inverted to grant it the very powers it was meant to restrict, but that doesn't make such actions constitutional.

No, I've read the Constitution and decades of legal precedent and current practice agree with me, YOU on the other hand are claiming that regulation WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL is not "really" legal because, Kuli's OPINION!!!!!

 

[Kulindahr]

No, I've read the Constitution and decades of legal precedent and current practice agree with me, YOU on the other hand are claiming that regulation WHICH IS PERFECTLY LEGAL is not "really" legal because, Kuli's OPINION!!!!!

If you're reading the Constitution, please give the text where it authorizes Congress to regulate arms of any kind.

And you have no clue what my opinion is. I'm merely presenting the bare facts, beginning with the clear statement that if the Constitution doesn't grant Congress an authority, then Congress does not have that authority.

 

[Benvolio]

If you're reading the Constitution, please give the text where it authorizes Congress to regulate arms of any kind.

And you have no clue what my opinion is. I'm merely presenting the bare facts, beginning with the clear statement that if the Constitution doesn't grant Congress an authority, then Congress does not have that authority.

Once again, the Congress does have authority to regulate interstate commerce in guns, and the courts will extend that authority as far as the democrats wish.

 

[TX-Beau]

If you're reading the Constitution, please give the text where it authorizes Congress to regulate arms of any kind.

And you have no clue what my opinion is. I'm merely presenting the bare facts, beginning with the clear statement that if the Constitution doesn't grant Congress an authority, then Congress does not have that authority.

If you live in the U.S. please give the law that says you can't.

We ALLLLLLLl know what your opinion is, you've been tossing it at us for years.

 

[xbuzzerx]

What it has is the power to arm, organize, and discipline the militia, and since all of us are the militia, that means rules that apply to everyone (unless a legal distinction within the militia is established, as I proposed in my thread on Article I Sec 8).

Then you are saying exactly what you have said in every mass shooting in the last year or two. That Congress has the right to WELL REGULATE its MILITIA which is basically every citizen bearing arms.

Your abrupt reverse going "no, they do not" now is inexplicable.

 

[Kulindahr]

If you live in the U.S. please give the law that says you can't.

We ALLLLLLLl know what your opinion is, you've been tossing it at us for years.

Scream all you want, I almost never give my opinion.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Scream all you want, I almost never give my opinion.

Kulindahr, you give your opinion on the gun and gun restriction debate whenever it occurs. There's nine pages here, and I believe you're in most of them. Giving your opinion. And it has not changed in memory.

 

[Kulindahr]

Then you are saying exactly what you have said in every mass shooting in the last year or two. That Congress has the right to WELL REGULATE its MILITIA which is basically every citizen bearing arms.

Your abrupt reverse going "no, they do not" now is inexplicable.

I haven't reversed anything.

Congress does not have the power to regulate guns -- they never have, because no such thing is granted in the Constitution.

And the militia is not "basically every citizen bearing arms", it's basically every citizen capable of bearing arms. SO if you want Congress to require training of the militia, then everyone will have to trained, which means the weapons required for that training will have to be made available, and everyone will have to learn to use them.

Nor does Congress have the authority (Congress has no rights, it being government) the "WELL REGULATE its MILITIA", because there is no authority to regulate the militia in the modern meaning of that term, and the militia does not belong to Congress in the first place -- quite the reverse.

It may be constitutional to establish a distinction within the militia, since that was done in Revolutionary times, and then set requirements affecting the new distinction -- but that would also require providing the appropriate arms for anyone who wants to join that level of distinction so they can train with them (which was also done in Revolutionary times). I think the cost would be well worth it, because it would result in everyone within that new distinction receiving a certain standard of training and being subject to scrutiny.
Unfortunately no one planning an act of terrorism could be expected to join, but we'd sweep up a lot of the rest.

Besides which, secure storage of arms not in use could plainly be required for everyone with arms, as part of proper discipline.

 

[Kulindahr]

Kulindahr, you give your opinion on the gun and gun restriction debate whenever it occurs. There's nine pages here, and I believe you're in most of them. Giving your opinion. And it has not changed in memory.

I rarely give my opinion. I've probably states it a few times, but that's rare. I do instead what I've been trained to do: operate on the assumption that words have meaning, and that said meaning is what the originators of specific words had in mind.

The Constitution means what it means, like it or not. When, for example, J. Turley states what the Constitution means, as a scholar, he is not giving his opinion of the Constitution, or of the issue, he is giving the meaning. I do the same: I reserve my opinion to myself. for the most part.

 

[luckynumbah7]

You're mistaken if you think you haven't been consistently showing us all your opinion. Everyone does here, you can't miss it. You don't have to say "This is my opinion" before starting your paragraph when you've got nine pages of what you believe and think the constitution and its amendments claim.

The fillibuster ended today, by the way. They'll be voting on a few things you've been claiming the constitution does not allow. And it took far, far too long to get the fucking Repubs to sit there and do their jobs.

Believing that the 2nd amendment of a very, very old document means a specific thing regarding firearms a few hundred years later when firearms themselves are radically different makes not a lot of sense.

 

[Kabluey]

I rarely give my opinion. I've probably states it a few times, but that's rare. I do instead what I've been trained to do: operate on the assumption that words have meaning, and that said meaning is what the originators of specific words had in mind.

The Constitution means what it means, like it or not. When, for example, J. Turley states what the Constitution means, as a scholar, he is not giving his opinion of the Constitution, or of the issue, he is giving the meaning. I do the same: I reserve my opinion to myself. for the most part.

Constitutional reform seems like a good idea, except to the people any reforms might negatively affect.

Interestingly, society has for the most part advanced considerably since the second amendment.

We have police forces, intelligence, public fire services, things like bacteria and viruses have been discovered, the atom has been split, we've invented cars, planes and even space travel, we've provided universal suffrage, created social security safety nets, we've discovered electricity and telephones.

Things inconceivable in the age of muskets.

Intent and context should also be considered.
Could the founding fathers imagine an age where a police officer could respond following a call for help using a telephone?
Could they imagine non lethal weapons like trazers?

Could they imagine a single troubled teen or gay nightclub visitor single handedly killing 50 people all by themselves with a single weapon?

 

[Benvolio]

You're mistaken if you think you haven't been consistently showing us all your opinion. Everyone does here, you can't miss it. You don't have to say "This is my opinion" before starting your paragraph when you've got nine pages of what you believe and think the constitution and its amendments claim.

The fillibuster ended today, by the way. They'll be voting on a few things you've been claiming the constitution does not allow. And it took far, far too long to get the fucking Repubs to sit there and do their jobs.

Believing that the 2nd amendment of a very, very old document means a specific thing regarding firearms a few hundred years later when firearms themselves are radically different makes not a lot of sense.

I remember that you have trouble understanding "Congress shall make no law......."

 

[luckynumbah7]

I remember that you have trouble understanding "Congress shall make no law......."

You know what an amendment is, yes? Restrictions do not mean utter revocation.

Go on, try and convince us you're a lawyer again. I suspect everyone could use a laugh right about now.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Could they imagine a single troubled teen or gay nightclub visitor single handedly killing 50 people all by themselves with a single weapon?

Well, considering the military commanders kept the rifled musket barrel length and didn't shorten it to improve accuracy because they thought their rear infantry would fuck up and shoot the front line in the head, I'll have to go with "No." They also thought bayonets were gonna be a long-time favorite.

Fuckin' joke is pretending firearms now are similar to the firearms of the past.

here's musket inaccuracy

https://allthingsliberty.com/2013/07/the-inaccuracy-of-muskets/

 

[xbuzzerx]

You're mistaken if you think you haven't been consistently showing us all your opinion. Everyone does here, you can't miss it. You don't have to say "This is my opinion" before starting your paragraph when you've got nine pages of what you believe and think the constitution and its amendments claim.

He consistently presents the latter as unequivocal fact completely closed to discussion, debate, or variance in interpretation. Thus he doesn't need to "give an opinion" because he's already arranged the goalposts and the rules of the discussion in such a way that there is only one conclusion, which just so happens to be the one he agrees with.

It's just a tactic, nothing more. And not a particularly clever one.

Fill pages of the rest of the discussion with calling us liars, cowards and everything else for refusing to accept his premise.

 

[Rolyo85]

I am not surprised that Kulindahr would choose to make the biggest mass shooting in America, and a hate crime that was a total violation of the LGBT community about the sanctity of guns rather than the sanctity of lives. But I AM deeply repulsed by this utter soullessness.

 

[Kulindahr]

Believing that the 2nd amendment of a very, very old document means a specific thing regarding firearms a few hundred years later when firearms themselves are radically different makes not a lot of sense.

Changing technology changes the meanings of words? Wow -- that's concept a propagandist could love; you can change any law just by claiming its meaning is different because technology has changed.

The words mean what the Framers and their generation understood them as. That's easily found, despite all the verbal gymnastics the left engages in to make them mean something else. There are a few on the left who are actually honest, such as Jonathan Turley, who recognize what the Second means and plainly say if you don't like it, then change it the way that's provided for.

The Framers knew things would change -- firearms technology was changing already with rifling and the first attempts at combined cartridges with powder and bullet together, with the first machine guns, and more. That's why they provided a means to change the Constitution. But to say that the meaning has changed because circumstances change is dishonest and vile, as it shows no respect whatsoever for the law, making it a tool of whoever holds power.

Should the religious right ever gain power in the U.S., the left has provided them with the perfect tool to change the supreme law of the land: they could make it mean anything they want just by saying that circumstances have changed. And it would serve the left right if that happened, for pioneering the notion that the law is malleable instead of words with actual meaning.

 

[Kulindahr]

Constitutional reform seems like a good idea, except to the people any reforms might negatively affect.

Interestingly, society has for the most part advanced considerably since the second amendment.

We have police forces, intelligence, public fire services, things like bacteria and viruses have been discovered, the atom has been split, we've invented cars, planes and even space travel, we've provided universal suffrage, created social security safety nets, we've discovered electricity and telephones.

Things inconceivable in the age of muskets.

Calling it "the age of muskets" is dishonest: the Founding Fathers knew of rifles, cartridges (powder plus bullet together), breech-loading firearms (cannon as well as rifles), and machine guns. So they not only were aware that weapons were changing, they would have expected them to go on changing. And they would have mentioned it if they thought that changing technology would change the meaning of their words.

The Second Amendment's primary purpose was to allow the states and the citizens to force the federal government to behave itself. That isn't about guns at all, it;s about human nature, and unless human nature has changed, the basis for the Second stands.

Intent and context should also be considered.
Could the founding fathers imagine an age where a police officer could respond following a call for help using a telephone?
Could they imagine non lethal weapons like trazers?

What they could imagine doesn't change the meaning of their words.

They knew of semaphores and other means of rapid communication, they had imaginations, so they would have expected that inventive humans would come up with yet better ways to communicate.

They were definitely aware of non-lethal weapons; there were crossbows that fired heavy bolts with a blunt end, specifically for knocking people out instead of killing them.

As for taxers specifically, Ben Franklin probably wouldn't be surprised at them in the least; he knew of the Leyden jar, as did Jefferson; and Franklin certainly knew of what a good jolt of electricity would do!

Could they imagine a single troubled teen or gay nightclub visitor single handedly killing 50 people all by themselves with a single weapon?

Yes -- there were such weapons. The difference is that today they're smaller and easier to aim.

 

[luckynumbah7]

Here is what your "Good people with Guns" culture gets;


http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...spute-spilled-residential-street-Houston.html

 

[Kulindahr]

Well, considering the military commanders kept the rifled musket barrel length and didn't shorten it to improve accuracy because they thought their rear infantry would fuck up and shoot the front line in the head, I'll have to go with "No." They also thought bayonets were gonna be a long-time favorite.

Shortening a barrel decreases accuracy -- that's simple physics.

And the reason they kept the same barrel length was for standardization of tactics; the bayonet was indeed popular with most generals, and for it to be most useful all the guns had to be the same length. And it was popular because with muskets, when two armies got close together one could mount a charge and expect to reach the enemy without losing too many men because the rate of fire was so low, and with rifles that remained true even with cartridges, though breech-loading was starting to change that equation. And when the enemy charged and got in among your own ranks, the gun was useless unless it could be turned into a spear, which is what the bayonet served to do.

Further, bayonets were indeed a "long-time favorite", seeing significant use during the Civil War and beyond World War I. Even in World War II the bayonet played an important role, mostly when overrunning enemy positions.

Fuckin' joke is pretending firearms now are similar to the firearms of the past.

The joke is pretending that they couldn't have imagined that technology would keep improving.