or Connect
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:

Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook. - Page 349

post #5221 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post


Yeah, the whole "Minutemen used muskets so the Second Amendment only covers muskets" meme thing is idiotic, but it strikes me more as combatting idiocity with idiocity.

Well, there's intentionally doing this and then there's doing this by being an idiot. I highly doubt if it's the former being employed 99% of the time.
post #5222 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Piobaire View Post

Well, there's intentionally doing this and then there's doing this by being an idiot. I highly doubt if it's the former being employed 99% of the time.

I basically agree, although I may be more cynical than you in guessing it's more like a 95/5 split. I assume that on every hot button issue there are partisan hacks on every side whose job it is to crank out bullshit memes that they know are bullshit but that they are hoping will catch on because either (1) MY VERSIONS OF MURICA!!; or (2) profit.

HEY IF EVERYONE WHO LIKES TO PLAY THE LOTTERY CONTRIBUTES ONE DOLLAR TO CHARITY TOMORROW INSTEAD OF BUYING A LOTTERY TICKET WE CAN END HUNGER IN THE WORLD BECAUSE .001% OF $1m IS $999,9999, 99999!!
post #5223 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

I basically agree, although I may be more cynical than you in guessing it's more like a 95/5 split. I assume that on every hot button issue there are partisan hacks on every side whose job it is to crank out bullshit memes that they know are bullshit but that they are hoping will catch on because either (1) MY VERSIONS OF MURICA!!; or (2) profit.

HEY IF EVERYONE WHO LIKES TO PLAY THE LOTTERY CONTRIBUTES ONE DOLLAR TO CHARITY TOMORROW INSTEAD OF BUYING A LOTTERY TICKET WE CAN END HUNGER IN THE WORLD BECAUSE .001% OF $1m IS $999,9999, 99999!![/quote]




The more sophisticated version of these "money solves systemic problems" meme is the billionnaire charity...
post #5224 of 5454
The Second Amendment is tied directly to Locke's principle of the consent of the governed. Its in the Declaration of Independence. Gun banners focus on the "militia" preamble, but if that's the case, then the feds still have no right to interfere with a state's militia. And the national guard, which is federally controlled, is not a state militia.
post #5225 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

The Second Amendment is tied directly to Locke's principle of the consent of the governed. Its in the Declaration of Independence. Gun banners focus on the "militia" preamble, but if that's the case, then the feds still have no right to interfere with a state's militia. And the national guard, which is federally controlled, is not a state militia.

Be close, but not familiar. Neither a borrower nor a lender be.
post #5226 of 5454
What are the odds that Lighthouse has read Locke versus reading his little tidbit in a Breitbart article?
post #5227 of 5454
If so, it's apparently Breitbart's position that:
1. States can impose whatever gun regulations they want.
2. The federal government can impose whatever gun regulations they want on folks who aren't members of non-existent state militias.
post #5228 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

If so, it's apparently Breitbart's position that:
1. States can impose whatever gun regulations they want.
2. The federal government can impose whatever gun regulations they want on folks who aren't members of non-existent state militias.



No no no. The state's right interpretation died in Heller. It (state's right view) stemmed from a misreading of case called Miller. My point is that the "oooh militia!" crowd's argument hits a dead end. Play the tape . . .

If the second amendment is a state's right, rather than an individual right, then the federal government may not infringe a state's right to arm its militia.

And Breitbart would be lucky to have me as a contributing writer.
post #5229 of 5454
I'll add that under most state constitutions, the militia is comprised of all able-bodied men over 18 years of age.
post #5230 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

No no no. The state's right interpretation died in Heller. It (state's right view) stemmed from a misreading of case called Miller. My point is that the "oooh militia!" crowd's argument hits a dead end. Play the tape . . .

If the second amendment is a state's right, rather than an individual right, the the federal government may not infringe a state's right to arm its militia.

And Breitbart would be lucky to have me as a contributing writer.

Er, no. It's only a dead end if you're shooting at a straw man "no gunz for nobody evah" argument. Saying the federal government can't interfere with a state's right to arm its militia doesn't really help non-militia members who want to own guns.
post #5231 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Er, no. It's only a dead end if you're shooting at a straw man "no gunz for nobody evah" argument. Saying the federal government can't interfere with a state's right to arm its militia doesn't really help non-militia members who want to own guns.

I agree with the last sentence, but again, this view of the Second Amendment has been rejected. So we are arguing hypothetically. I suspect that most rational (red) states would expand militia membership if the state's rights view were the law. Which it ain't.
post #5232 of 5454
I'm a die-hard collective right guy, myself. "The people" in "the right of the people to keep and bear arms" refers to the government. There is no individual right to keep and bear arms, just like there is no individual right to assemble. How can one person assemble? It makes no sense. And of course the right to petition the government for redress of grievances belongs to the government as well. Also, the fourth amendment -- "the right of the people to be secure in their persons, houses, papers,and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" -- you guessed it, collective right. Don't want those nasty cops messing with our duly elected officials.
post #5233 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

I agree with the last sentence, but again, this view of the Second Amendment has been rejected. So we are arguing hypothetically. I suspect that most rational (red) states would expand militia membership if the state's rights view were the law. Which it ain't.
Well, sure. But you brought up the hypothetical. I'm just pointing out that if we're discussing dead ends, that's not actually helpful for private gun ownership advocates. At best, it pushes regulation to the state level and authorizes much more restrictive gun control legislation (at the state or local level) than is currently the norm.
post #5234 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by lawyerdad View Post

Well, sure. But you brought up the hypothetical. I'm just pointing out that if we're discussing dead ends, that's not actually helpful for private gun ownership advocates. At best, it pushes regulation to the state level and authorizes much more restrictive gun control legislation (at the state or local level) than is currently the norm.


The people pushing the state's rights view argued that the right to bear arms no longer existed. They (or at least some of "they") equated the national guard to the state militia, and said, "well, the national guard is federalized, so sorry, we can now take your guns. Plus its 2000, and we are modern."

So the state's rights view was used as the camel's nose for the gun banners.

There are a lot of stupid Second Amendment opinions out there. Including by Burger. John Paul Steven's opinion in Heller, his last, was a disaster. Scalia properly ridiculed him for his pick and choose buffet approach to the Constitution. (my words, not Scalia's)
post #5235 of 5454
Quote:
Originally Posted by Lighthouse View Post

The people pushing the state's rights view argued that the right to bear arms no longer existed. They (or at least some of "they") equated the national guard to the state militia, and said, "well, the national guard is federalized, so sorry, we can now take your guns. Plus its 2000, and we are modern."

So the state's rights view was used as the camel's nose for the gun banners.

There are a lot of stupid Second Amendment opinions out there. Including by Burger. John Paul Steven's opinion in Heller, his last, was a disaster. Scalia properly ridiculed him for his pick and choose buffet approach to the Constitution. (my words, not Scalia's)

I don't know what "some of" them did or didn't argue. I realize that attacking batshit crazy strawman arguments is a popular sport around here, but I've never quite gotten the appeal.

And fatties like Scalia never like people getting in front of them at the buffet table.
New Posts  All Forums:Forum Nav:
  Return Home
  Back to Forum: Current Events, Power and Money
Styleforum › Forums › General › Current Events, Power and Money › Stupid political crap your friends post on facebook.