I just sent a pro 2nd amendment email to the whitehouse.

[Tim01]

I kept it short and made my point.


What have you guys been doing?

[jgraz]

1. I've been calling the White House and Congress about stuff that actually matters right now

You know, health care, indefinite detention, financial reform, etc. Little stuff like that.

[Tim01]

3. And how is that working out for you?

Didn't the president just make indefinite detention an option?

[jgraz]

5. probably better than what you're doing

e.g. filling up their Wingnut bin.

[paulsby]

88. translation: your definition of a wingnut, is somebody who supports civil rights

fascinating

[jgraz]

116. Hint: you have to support more than one civil right to "support civil rights"

Otherwise, you're just pro-gun.

[X_Digger]

122. Perhaps you should search Paulsby's posts..

.. in other forums here before making yourself look silly.

[jgraz]

125. paulsby wasn't just talking about paulsby

And neither am I.

[inkool]

123. Who said anything about....

only supporting one civil right?

[X_Digger]

121. wrong spot. n/t

[benEzra]

127. Ummm, did you notice that the language endorsing the "assault weapon" fraud

has apparently been removed from the White House website?

This administration appears to be actually paying attention to people outside think tanks, focus groups, and the gun-control lobby on this issue, and they have acted on what they have heard. Holder was reined in, pro-AWB agitators ignored, and the language dropped. Yes, I do think they are listening.

[Wickerman]

141. +1 n/t

[ZombieHorde]

4. I do hold your list of issues a higher priority than the 2nd admendment,

but I do wonder about the number of voters we lose and gain because of the general view that the Democrats are against RTKABA. (is that the proper anagram?)

In other words, if the Dems gave up on this issue, would we lose more voters than we would gain, gain more voters than we would lose, or would it be about the same?

What do you think?

[jgraz]

7. We lose by abandoning the gun control debate. We lose unconditionally

The fact is that most thinking progressives are in favor of gun control. By pretending we don't care, we not only lose on policy, we also look like wimps and liars.

For the past few decades, there has been no coherent policy debate on gun control. As a result, the country has moved so far to the right on this issue that gun control advocates are now considered unelectable. Our national leaders are divided between those who are rabidly pro-gun and those who pretend to be pro-gun in order to get elected (think Kerry in the hunting outfit).

Of course, views on guns don't exist in a vacuum. The pro-gun position has traditionally been part of the GOP's Southern Strategy and, as such, it brings with it a slew of policy positions that are right-wing, regressive and decidedly Republican. By tacitly agreeing with the wingnuts on this issue, we give them credibility on the rest of their agenda.

Imagine where we'd be if we'd just given up on key issues like abortion or civil rights. Sure, we'd have a better chance of swinging some Republicans to our side, but we'd have done so by basically *becoming* Republicans. And, of course, Democrats tend to lose elections when they start acting like Republicans. We win when we bring new voters into the process.

Strong, fiery advocates for sane gun policy would have a great shot at getting elected in many Democratic districts -- especially if they advocated for uncompromising progressive values in other areas. Even better, they'd start chipping away at the debate and perhaps succeed in turning us away from gun policies that most of the civilized world find appalling.

[Deadric Damodred]

9. "Imagine where we'd be if we'd just given up on key issues...

...like abortion or civil rights..." Owning guns is an individual civil right.

[jgraz]

10. You can say it as many times as you want, that doesn't make it true.

The five Neanderthals on the Supreme Court might agree with you. That doesn't make it true, either.

[Deadric Damodred]

12. So you feel that the Supreme Court is wrong?

Can I ask what your credentials are that make your judgement on a civil rights issue outweight the judgement of someone who is on the Supreme Court?

Don't bother answering. That's what I thought.....so I think it's you that can say it as many times as you want, but nobody gives a shit what you think as someone more important than you made the official judgement.

[jgraz]

34. Blind submission to authority. Another philosophical remora on the pro-gun position

Thanks for the reminder. :hi:

[Deadric Damodred]

46. Do you agree with Roe vs Wade?

If so, then you must just be in blind submission to authority. Let's face it, you are just trying to pretend that you can treat Supreme Court decisions like a buffet, only obeying the ones you like. Sorry Charlie, that's not how it works.

[iverglas]

53. "Sorry Charlie, that's not how it works."

Well, the sentiment is correct.


Do you agree with Roe vs Wade?

I don't, but we'll assume jgraz does.


Let's face it, you are just trying to pretend that you can treat Supreme Court decisions like a buffet, only obeying the ones you like.

Oops.

Where did this "obeying" come from?

The issue on the table, I think you'll have to agree, is AGREEING.


The fact is that your Supreme Court's decisions are AUTHORITATIVE, i.e. they must be "obeyed".

The other fact is that your Supreme Court's decisions are sometimes BAD. Wrongheaded. Poorly reasoned. Inconsistent with other decisions. Not soundly grounded in accepted principles. Like that.

See at all?


Nobody said that anybody could treat SC decisions "like a buffet" when it comes to OBEYING them.

The issue is whether someone AGREES WITH certain of them.

And you're doing a fine job of making jgraz's point on that bit.

[Deadric Damodred]

63. Well...

...I've been twisting your words all day, so I guess I should throw you a bone. You're right, I knowingly substituted "obey" for "agree". I'll agree we are talking about agreeing.

[iverglas]

67. progress?

Good then.

[jgraz]

43. Here's a question for you: whom do you think are, collectively, better jurists?

A) Stephens, Breyer, Souter and Ginsberg, or

B) Roberts, Alito, Kennedy, Scalia and Thomas?

[Deadric Damodred]

48. The best justice Kennedy...

...because he is the only one that actually votes both ways. Stephens, Breyer, Souter, and Ginsberg all only vote liberal no matter what, while Roberts, Alito, Scalia, and Thomas all only vote Republican no matter what. That's not how our nation's fate should be decided. It should be a true unbiased decision, like Kennedy, who thinks through his decisions and sometimes votes Democrat, and sometimes votes Republican. If all 9 justices were like Kennedy, we'd probably never see any 5-4 decisions.

[jgraz]

51. You mean the guy who put Bush in office? Yeah he's a shining beacon of jurisprudence, that one.

:puke:

Thanks for confirming what I already knew.

[Deadric Damodred]

54. Nobody is perfect...

...but at least he doesn't vote straight down any party line. Don't you think there is a problem when you know, without reading a case, but just have the basic idea of it, how 8 of the 9 justices are going to vote? That's not how it's supposed to be. Minds should not be made up on cases long before they ever get put before them. It's obvious that's what you want. You want justices that will vote no to gun rights every time, and have their minds made up on gun right's cases that haven't even happened yet. That's not democracy.

[jgraz]

57. No, stop it, you're killing me...

:rofl:

[paulsby]

92. that's not really correct

scalia for instance makes some terrible decisions. i think his decision in the california medical marijuana case was particularly ridiculous, but he does not always vote republican. he's very good on speech issues.

ginsburg generally votes liberal, but i'd be hard pressed to view her Kelo commentary as "liberal"

[paulsby]

91. here's a hint

even the dissenters (A) on the issue of heller and DC gun laws, agree the 2nd recognizes an individual right.

that's something to think about.

[jgraz]

94. Which is irrelevant, given how they qualify that right

At the end of the day, the traditional pro-gun view of the Second Amendment is eviscerated by Stevens, et al.

[paulsby]

95. it's not a pro gun view

it's a pro civil rights view.

just as roe v. wade is not a pro abortion view. it's a pro civil rights view. it doesn't say abortions are good, or celebrate them. it says it's a civil right to have the ability to choose one.

same thang.

[jgraz]

96. No, it's a pro-gun view

Unlike roe proponents, gun owners expressly say that guns are good, and they celebrate them at every opportunity. Hell, I had one guy yesterday tell me that if it wasn't for him and his Great and Powerful Gun, I'd be in a cell in Gitmo right now and George Bush would still be president.

If you need further persuasion, consider how many of your fellow gun owners stood up when Bush stole two elections, signed the PATRIOT act, started warrantless wiretapping and began systematically torturing people. Not a good percentage, eh?

For most of the pro-gun movement, it's been about civil right (not plural). Give them a nice, shiny peashooter to play with and the rest of the constitution can go hang.

[paulsby]

97. this isn't about gun owners

it's about the civil right to carry guns. i supported the 2nd amendment long before i personally owned a gun (i carried one as part of my cop job). lots of people i know personally support gun rights, but do not even OWN a gun.

just like lots of women support choice who have never had an abortion. some are PERSONALLY against abortion and would not have one themself, but still support the right.

it's an analogy that anti-civil rights people like you try to argue around.

just as the anti-choicers often try to claim that pro-choicers fetishize and worship abortion, anti-RKBA people try to simplify this to people who are just gun nuts, etc.

this is about civil rights. i support civil rights recognized by the constitution, EVEN if i don't necessarily engagein all of them.

i support the right to use hate speech (1st amendment). i don't use it. people who support the 1st are not LOVERS of hate speech.

i support the ACLU's defense of the right of the nazis to march in skokie. i don't love nazis. i hate them. but my love of civil rights trumps my hate of nazis.

some of care about civil rights.

frankly, i don't give a flying fuck about guns. gun talk bores me. civil rights excite and inspire me.

[jgraz]

117. I'll accept your analogy if

You can point to an abortion discussion group where people eagerly talk about the all abortions they've had, the new abortions they can't wait to get and all the cool stuff in the latest issue of Abortions & Miscarriages magazine.

[paulsby]

148. i;m not denying that gun fetishists

exist and are CERTAINLY more common than abortion fetishists. that wasn't my point

my point was that this issue is about civil rights, not guns. just because SOME gun rights advocates are ALSO "gun nuts" doesn't mean that's what this issue is about.

you belittle civil rights advocates by lumping them in with a small SUBSET of gun rights advocates. pretty much everybody in my family is pro civil rights, iow pro RKBA.

i'm talking about 12 people. only 3 of us even OWN guns.

[iverglas]

151. y'know, at least reproductive choice advocates

don't fill their mouth with mealies like this "pro-civil rights" crap on the part of gun militants.

The issue is reproductive choice and reproductive rights, and everybody knows that's what "pro-choice" means. It's shorthand for "pro-reproductive choice".

You blather on about being "pro-civil rights" and then say "iow pro RKBA".

No, "pro-RKBA" is not "other words" for "pro-civil rights". Not.

Say what you mean and mean what you say. Eh?

[paulsby]

152. actually,

plenty of reproductive choice advocates speak in the language of civil rights. ever been to a NARAL meeting?

2nd amendment advocates SHOULD use the language of civil rights, because this is a civil rights struggle.

[iverglas]

153. you need to learn the lingo

The right to an abortion is not a "civil right". It is a fundamental or human right.

A civil right is something one has by virtue of membership in a particular human society. The right to vote, the right to own property, like that.

A fundamental or human right is something one has by virtue of being a human being.

I never have a clue what you people think you're talking about with this "civil rights" yammering.


Yes, people who seek to advance recognition of and respect for a particular human right speak the language of human rights. Reproductive choice is a fundamental, human right.

They don't go blabbing around the world saying they are "pro-human rights" when the issue at hand is reproductive choice.

(Mind you, I do know of one group that does this: the Human Rights Campaign, which is specifically an organization for the advancement of the interests of GLBT people in the US. I find the organization's name disingenuous and offensive for exactly these reasons.)

Use the language of whatever you want.

Just use it honestly and candidly. Don't use it as a battering ram or a hidey hole, which is all you're doing.

[jgraz]

155. Why yes, I HAVE been to a NARAL meeting

Several, in fact. The phrase "civil rights" never came up AFAICR.

What happened in the meetings you attended?

[Statistical]

118. Majority of non gunowners believe the 2nd protects and individual right..

Which means many non-gunowners even those with no intention to ever own a firearm believe the 2nd guarantees and individual right.

Civil rights are civil rights regardless of if you benefit from them or not.

Gun owners make up about 35% of the population.



Even more clear



Your view is not only not supported by the Supreme Court it is also not supported by many anti-gun legal scholars.

Furthermore 63% of NON GUN OWNERS believe the second protects an individual right.

Given that 63% is larger than the number who are against more gun control (51% favor same or less gun control) even a substantial portion of people who believe we need more gun control believe the 2nd protects an individual right.

Keep telling yourself that your views are in alignment with America. You are so far out of mainstream that you can't even see mainstream from where you are. You think Obama is going to swing that far left? Really? Now that is some "hope".

[jgraz]

119. And again, 61% of Americans do not believe in evolution

Does that mean evolution is false?

This country hasn't had a coherent debate on gun policy for years. For most people, if it's not on the teevee, it doesn't exist. The NRA hasn't won any arguments, but they've been successful in scaring the shit out of politicians.

[Statistical]

124. You often bring it up but I have never seen a cite.

http://www.gallup.com/poll/21814/evolution-creationism-intelligent-design.aspx

53% don't believe in evolution pretty much a 50/50 split due to margin of error (+/- 3%).

75% believe in the individual right despite the massive anti-gun sentiment on the TV.
How many pro-gun news reports are there vs anti-gun ones?
How many people wrongly think crime is going up and illegal firearm usage is going up despite the stats saying otherwise.

Despite all that, despite not even owning a gun, despite the easier thing for a non-gunowner would be to simply ban them less than 20% believe the 2nd allows that and only 28% believe handguns should be banned.

Welcome to the loony fringe. You are as close to mainstream as a freeper trying to push a Christian theocracy on the United States.

Lets just ignore all that for a second. Many anti gun legal scholars agree with the individual right theory. Are they all stupid and brainwashed. Some who have even said outright they are for a complete ban believe the 2nd makes that impossible. Are they NRA puppets?

[jgraz]

126. Hmm.. how would someone find out about something like that?

Here, let me help you out:

http://lmgtfy.com/?q=evolution+poll

[Name removed]

128. Deleted sub-thread

Sub-thread removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[iverglas]

130. interesting, eh?

You think Obama is going to swing that far left?

So firearms control advocacy is "left".

I guess we know what that makes the other end.

I may quote you, I assume?

[Statistical]

132. Yeah it makes it centrist.

The Democratic party is not one unified block is runs from slightly left to moderately left and a tiny bit of extreme/fringe left.

Of course socialism/communism is even further left and fits in nicely with the concept of destroying civil rights.

So:

anti RKBA = fringe left
pro RKBA = centrist (as evident by the overwhelming support from people both gun owners & non gunowners)
pro heavy military weapons, overthrow the govt, shoot up federal agents = fringe right

No centrist in the RKBA issue is advocating no limits of RKBA. I don't think I have a right to own a nuke and don't want one.
Nobody here is advocating no limits (which would be the other extreme) but some are advocating this civil rights doesn't exist and the govt can completely ban all firearms.

Kinda similar to other rights:
pro-abortion = fringe left
pro-choice = centrist
anti-choice = fringe right

[iverglas]

136. that is so fucking full of shit

Kinda similar to other rights:
pro-abortion = fringe left
pro-choice = centrist
anti-choice = fringe right

No. Sorry.


pro-abortion = figment of someone's imagination
pro-choice = rational and decent
anti-choice = pig-ignorant and fascistic


Kinda similar to:
pro-gay marriage = meaningless burble
pro-equal right to marry = rational and decent
anti-equal right to marry = pig-ignorant and fascistic


Some things, you see, are just either/or. In some situations, there just IS NO justification for interfering in the exercise of a right. Not in our time and place, anyhow. Because there is no risk of harm to a state/public interest as a result of the exercise of the right.

Other things, you see, are different. Some exercises of some rights do carry a risk of harm to the public or members of the public or to other state/public interests. And the possession of firearms just is one of those things.


Come back when you can construct an actual analogy, maybe.


I don't think I have a right to own a nuke and don't want one.

Well maybe some people do. You seem to think that your whims and desires should carry some weight in decisions about exercises of other people's rights. At least no serious advocate of stringent firearms control would utter nonsense like that.

I don't want one so it doesn't matter to me.

First, they came for Joe's nukes ...

[Statistical]

142. I never said I wanted to control someone elses right.

Until the SCOTUS recognizes the 2nd protects the right to own a nuclear weapon there is no "right" to be controlled.

My personal opinion is I don't want a nuke for me.
If the govt prevents others from owning a nuke then I don't see that as infringement because no right exists.
If someone wants to petition the government for the privilege of owning a nuke I won't stop them.
I might point out they are unlikely to be sucessful but they do have a right to petition the govt about grievances no matter how unlikely.

The majority of Americans believe the 2nd protects an individual right unconnected with service in militia.
The majority of gun owners believe it.
The majority of non gunowners believe it.
The majority of independents, republicans, and democrats believe it.

If that doesn't make it a centrist position I don't know.

You can not like the reality of the situation but it doesn't change it.


I also accept that the centrist position is not one without limits.

Those of the fringe right believe there are no limits
Those of the fringe left believe in absolute bans or no right at all.

WACKO EXTREME LEFT = right doesn't even exist
CENTER (which includes people who lean both left & right) = right exists but it is subject to some reasonable restrictions
WACKO EXTREME RIGHT = right is subject to no restrictions whatsoever including ownership of nukes and aircraft carriers.


On Abortion there are some who I would consider pro-abortion. There are some who believe abortion should be legal for minor without parental consent no matter how young. Most people who are pro-choice would like to see the need for less abortions but I saw at least one person on DU who said they wanted to see MORE abortions. Now such views aren't common but they exist and that is why it is called the fringe. Pro-choice is a centrist position.

[iverglas]

147. is this some kind of mantra?

If that doesn't make it a centrist position I don't know.

And I don't care. Is there a dictionary of political economy somewhere that defines "centrist", otherwise known as "where the biggest lump of people lay their heads", by your definition anyhow, as "good"?

A majority of people in the US believes there should be statutory limits on women's access to abortion.

A majority of people in the US believes same-sex marriage should not be permitted.

Recent majorities of people in the US have supported all manner of hideous public policies.

That doesn't make the policies "centrist". In most cases, they're rather far right wing, by any measure applied anywhere else in the world, by any historical standard, by any standard other than counting the dots on the graph.

"Centrist" is just a shifting spot on a line that you're identifying as "likely to appeal to the most voters". And if you were in Germany in the 1930s? The UK in the 1950s? What would be "centrist" then?


Those of the fringe right believe there are no limits
Those of the fringe left believe in absolute bans or no right at all.

Okay. We've established that you regard more-stringent firearms control as "left" and less-stringent firearms control as "right". Rest assured that I will be quoting you.

I just think your formulation of the positions and assignment of their points is nonsense.

The far right doesn't care about bans or rights. It cares about what is in its class (and other group, e.g. ethnic) interests. Remember, Hitler had gun control, right? The far right does not talk about rights, except when it serves its interests to assert a right or demand a right for itself. It isn't the right it wants. It's the power, and what the power gets it.

I have no idea what position the "fringe left" might take on firearms control. Again, whatever was expedient in the circumstances, I would imagine, being as how we'd be talking about people who think in words like "revolutionary proletariat".


WACKO EXTREME LEFT = right doesn't even exist

Nope. Democratic socialist left, the leftest you're about to encounter when you're at home, = the "right" to possess a firearm is like any right to possess anything, an outgrowth/exercise of the right to liberty or security, but, like any other, subject to justified limitations.

What your constitution of the moment might say about it doesn't really matter a whit to a democratic socialist or anyone farther left, you see. We know that rights are not defined by your constitution any more than they were invented by it. Your constitution is a piece of paper with words that are applied to the governance of your society. That's all.


CENTER (which includes people who lean both left & right) = right exists but it is subject to some reasonable restrictions

No, MAJORITY. As explained earlier, where the majority lands does not a centre make, except in mathematics. The centre, in politics, is not the median or the average or the mode.


WACKO EXTREME RIGHT = right is subject to no restrictions whatsoever including ownership of nukes and aircraft carriers.

And no. Very deliberate, organized, goal-oriented right wing = the "right" is whatever serves our interests at the moment, and whatever that is, we'll call it a right. The KKK didn't support any right to possess firearms, right? (If it is arbitrarily denied, it ain't a right.)


On Abortion there are some who I would consider pro-abortion. There are some who believe abortion should be legal for minor without parental consent no matter how young.

Was there supposed to be some logical connection between those two statements, and I somehow just missed it?

"Pro" means "in favour of". You simply will not come up with anyone, other than non-credible pinpoints on your graph, who is "in favour of" abortion. No more than most gun militants would say they are "in favour of" firearms ownership. In favour of choice, remember? Favouring extending the right to make that choice to individuals who some think should be denied the exercise of it does not make anyone "pro-abortion". It just makes them someone you, apparently, disagree with.


Most people who are pro-choice would like to see the need for less abortions but I saw at least one person on DU who said they wanted to see MORE abortions.

Anyone who is genuinely pro-choice wants to see exactly as many abortions as there are women who decide that an abortion is in their own best interests. While most thoughtful individuals would prefer to see fewer women needing to decide between the limited options to which they are constrained by an unwanted pregnancy, no one who is pro-choice makes any pronouncement about how many abortions there should or should not be. Again, all you are doing is defining someone who disagrees with you as an extremist.


Pro-choice is a centrist position.

And you have just switched horses.

After making much hay about the numbers who crowd into your arbitrary "centre" when it comes to firearms control, now you are just making shit up. There is nothing centrist about the pro-choice position. As I have already said, it is a binary situation. Either/or. Someone might claim to be pro-choice and support a range of limitations on the exercise of women's reproductive rights -- for the very same reasons you are offering about everything here: personal preference. That isn't being "pro-choice", that's redefining "pro-choice" to fit what happens to be a majority view in the US at present.


And all in all: that is NOT what serious advocates of stringent firearms control do. They don't say "well X isn't important to me, and Y kinda makes my skin crawl, and Z is just icky, and obviously the people who want LMNO&P are irresponsible and nasty, so my unexamined, undefended personal preference is the right way to go for public policy". That is what these "centrist" "pro-choicers" of yours do. It is NOT what serious advocates of stringent firearms control do.

Serious advocates of the erosion of firearms control (and keep in mind that this is the goal: constant, ongoing, steady erosion of this and all the other underpinnings of modern liberal democracy, with no particular end point in sight), like serious advocates of the erosion of women's reproductive rights and the rights of every vulnerable minority group in society, operate from a very careful and deliberate game plan. They are out to destroy liberal democracy, not to even mention avert social democracy and whatever might be next on the horizon of progress after that. They know that the war on people must be fought on all these fronts simultaneously. They aren't out to get no control on firearms. They are out to get control of everything.

[X_Digger]

13. Actually, all nine..

From the dissent:

JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the
Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an
“individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be
enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second
Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us
anything about the scope of that right.

aka.. "It protects an individual right, buuuut..."

[jgraz]

35. Reading is fundamental

Go read the rest of the dissent. Your claim is soundly rejected.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

37. So they refute their own position? Somehow I think they are smarter than that.

[jgraz]

40. Once again, read the dissent

Or, just read the syllabi. If THIS is what you mean by an individual RKBA, you and I are in total agreement.

“JUSTICE STEVENS, with whom JUSTICE SOUTER, JUSTICE
GINSBURG, and JUSTICE BREYER join, dissenting.
The question presented by this case is not whether the Second Amendment protects a “collective right” or an “individual right.” Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right. Guns are used to hunt, for self-defense, to commit crimes, for sporting activities, and to perform military duties. The Second Amendment plainly does not protect the right to use a gun to rob a bank; it is equally clear that it does encompass the right to use weapons for certain military purposes. Whether it also protects the right to possess and use guns for nonmilitary purposes like hunting and personal self-defense is the question presented by this case. The text of the Amendment, its history, and our decision in United States v. Miller, 307 U. S. 174 (1939), provide a clear answer to that question. The Second Amendment was adopted to protect the right of the people of each of the several States to maintain a well-regulated militia. It was a response to concerns raised during the ratification of the Constitution that the power of Congress to disarm the state militias and create a national standing army posed an intolerable threat to the sovereignty of the several States. Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.


JUSTICE BREYER, with whom JUSTICE STEVENS, JUSTICE
SOUTER, and JUSTICE GINSBURG join, dissenting.
We must decide whether a District of Columbia law that prohibits the possession of handguns in the home violates the Second Amendment. The majority, relying upon its view that the Second Amendment seeks to protect a right of personal self-defense, holds that this law violates that
Amendment. In my view, it does not.
I
The majority’s conclusion is wrong for two independent reasons. The first reason is that set forth by JUSTICE STEVENS—namely, that the Second Amendment protects militia-related, not self-defense-related, interests. These two interests are sometimes intertwined. To assure 18th century
citizens that they could keep arms for militia purposes would necessarily have allowed them to keep arms that they could have used for self-defense as well. But self-defense alone, detached from any militia-related objective, is not the Amendment’s concern. The second independent reason is that the protection the Amendment provides is not absolute. The Amendment permits government to regulate the interests that it serves. Thus, irrespective of what those interests are—whether they do or do not include an independent interest in self-defense—the majority’s view cannot be correct unless it can show that the District’s regulation is unreasonable or inappropriate in Second Amendment terms. This the majority cannot do.”

So, according to the four thinking, progressive judges on the court, you have no individual right to own a gun for self-defense. Do you still think the dissenters support your views on the Second Amendment?

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

47. I believe they agreed the 2nd Amendment protects an individual right. So yes.

Kind of hard to read this statement any other way, "Surely it protects a right that can be enforced by individuals. But a conclusion that the Second Amendment protects an individual right does not tell us anything about the scope of that right." I haven't argued that the 2nd Amendment protects my right to self defense. I have argued that it protects my individual right to possess firearms. I really don't care about anyones opinion on what I do with those firearms, as long as they recognize my right to possess them. Hope that clears it up.

David

[jgraz]

52. Do you understand that four justices think you have NO RIGHT TO A PERSONAL FIREARM??

In theory, you could be issued a gun by a state militia and have no access to it unless you were under direct orders of a superior officer. Would you be cool with that? Cuz that's what Stevens, Breyer, Ginsburg and Souter are saying.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

99. They never say that.

[jgraz]

113. Oh, sweet donkey-loving Christ

Neither the text of the Amendment nor the arguments advanced by its proponents evidenced the slightest interest in limiting any legislature’s authority to regulate private civilian uses of firearms. Specifically, there is no indication that the Framers of the Amendment intended to enshrine the common-law right of self-defense in the Constitution.

Do you understand the above statement? According to Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, with Breyer concurring, the Second Amendment does not limit any legislature from regulating your private use of firearms. If there is no limit, a legislature could pass ANY LAW regarding personal firearm use, including an outright ban.

Even if you join a state-approved militia, you can still be prohibited from keeping a gun in your home. All that needs to happen is for the commander of the militia to decide that your gun will be kept somewhere else.

[Statistical]

120. Not quite.

Do you understand the above statement? According to Stevens, Souter and Ginsburg, with Breyer concurring, the Second Amendment does not limit any legislature from regulating your private use of firearms. If there is no limit, a legislature could pass ANY LAW regarding personal firearm use, including an outright ban.

Agreed per the 4 any thing up to and including a ban would be Constitutional.

Even if you join a state-approved militia, you can still be prohibited from keeping a gun in your home. All that needs to happen is for the commander of the militia to decide that your gun will be kept somewhere else.

So you say but they didn't. Furthermore this addresses an issue not directly before the court so you are taking a huge leap in assuming you know the intent of the court.

Say the 4 had their way and federal govt banned all civilian ownership of firearms.
Say VA responded by forming the VA irregulars open to anyone who currently can own a firearm by previous statute (no mentally ill, felons, etc).

The Federal govt then responds by saying even those in a militia can't keep their weapons at home.

I don't think that would pass Constitutional muster (even assuming Heller was decided the other way). If VA can prove that keeping all firearms centrally located reduces the effectiveness of the militia (a single bomb would wipe out all firearms) then having militia members keep their firearms in their home and on their person would be in connection to militia service.

The militia is better able to respond to a threat being dispersed. This believe has lots of historical evidence.

Now you may argue the dissenting 4 would say no. I think they would say yes but it is a logical fallacy based on the information available that you KNOW they would say no. Thus you can't say the 4 would prohibit your right to keep a weapon in your home connected to military service.

[iverglas]

131. why does this just keep getting repeated?

Say the 4 had their way and federal govt banned all civilian ownership of firearms.

This is NOT what

a legislature could pass ANY LAW regarding personal firearm use, including an outright ban,

in the mouths of that minority, or a hypothetical majority of the court, MEANS, for chrissakes.


Nothing about your statement is "their way".

Their way would be simply to say that the legislative branch MAY take such measures. The court might abhor the measures personally, but find that it had no grounds for striking them down.



For the rest, you are of course correct:

All that needs to happen is for the commander of the militia to decide that your gun will be kept somewhere else and for that measure to pass judicial scrutiny. You say it wouldn't, some would say it would, therein lies the stuff of appellate court decisions.


Thus you can't say the 4 would prohibit your right to keep a weapon in your home connected to military service.

NO ONE can say it, and I wish the hell you'd stop pretending anyone, let alone the court, would.

Courts do not MAKE laws. They uphold them or strike them down.

And nobody prohibits a right. Legislatures prohibit actions, and in doing so might interfere in the exercise of a right.


The muddleheadedness muddles my head.

[jgraz]

137. Learning disability?

:shrug:

[Statistical]

38. 9 of 9 justices on the supreme court believe it is a civil right.

they only differ on the scope and acceptable restrictions.

In 20 years you saying the 2nd isn't a civil right will sound a progressive as the Dread Scott decision or yelling from the courthouse steps "Segregation today, segregation tomorrow, segregation forever".

The antis wonder why there is no compromise on gun control.

If you are not even willing to admit the right exists them we have nothing to talk about.

The best solution would be to continue to marginalize your type until you look like a backwards thinking reactionary.

It is no different that saying abortion is not a right, now lets come together and compromise.

[jgraz]

41. Congratulations. You have a civil right to join any well-regulated militia you like.

Oh, but that gun you're using for home self-defense? Hand it over.

At least that's what the four human beings on the court believe.

[Statistical]

44. Well regulated militias routinely kept arms in the home.

Less chance of theft, or sabotage or outright capture by enemy force.

The only things stored in the arsenal was powder and that was because blackpowder unlike modern smokeless powder was inherently unstable. So militia members (which was virtually all males) kept a small amount at home and the war stock locked in a safe location where it wouldn't destroy half the town if it exploded.

Anyways the topic is moot. Heller is established law you might as well accept it.

Given the requirement for the highest court to not be subject to whims it is highly unlikely Heller will be overruled in our lifetime. There was a period of time when there were sufficent votes to overturn Roe but it never happened. The SCOTUS relies on the "firm bedrock principle" in which precedent should be accepted unless it is an outright miscarriage of justice. The risk in not doing so is that a constantly changing set of precedents undermines the very fabric of the legal system. It causes any untold number of decisions to be requestioned leading to chaos. If SCOTUS decisions a reversed as commonly as political parties gaining or losing congress the entire court systems time could be devoted to simply hearing appeals on older decided cases which are now subject to review due to new precedent.

If the court swing 5-4 away from Heller it might mean some future case imposes limits or defines/narrows the scope, there may be RKBA losses such as the court ruling that the right to carry (i.e. bear arms) is not protected. The likelihood of an outright reversal is essentially 0%.

Historically the percentages of cases involving a direct reversal are very small. They are reserved for huge miscarriage of justices. I doubt any of the 4 would believe defining a civil right "too broadly" is in the same Category as Dread Scott or Plessy v. Ferguson. Even in those cases reversals took a generation.

[jgraz]

45. Yes, I already know you haven't read the dissents

Further evidence is not required. But thanks for the reinforcement.

[Statistical]

55. I read it the day it came out.

Nowhere did the dissenting 4 indicate weapons couldn't be kept in the home if connected to service in the militia. Worst case scenario I would petition VA to reactivate the VA irregular which would then protect my right to own a firearm. If I have a weapon in the home (even one whos "purpose" is furtherance of a militia) I find it unlikely the court would rule I have to let a crime happen rather than use it in self defense.

Of course you ignored the whole aspect of Heller is not going to be reversed in our lifetime. You can have wet dreams about that happening all you want but it wont. Justices on both sides of the isle throughout history have been reluctant to directly reverse SCOTUS precedent. Even when they believe it is incorrectly decided. The cost to legal system is higher than what a single victory would be worth.

IF you can find any evidence that one of the 4 believe Heller is a miscarriage of justice on the magnitude of Dread Scott then I think a reversal would be possible.

Given that the dissenting 4 DO believe the 2nd is a civil right just one limited in scope (connection to service in a militia) I find it extremely unlikely they would see defining a civil right "too broadly" to be a miscarriage of justice.

Anyone thinking otherwise is just living a gun grabber bedtime fantasy.

When I die Heller will still be the guiding precedent for lower courts.
When you die it will be also. Likely when your kids and their kids die Heller will still not be reversed.

I grant you that Heller may be limited in scope by future decisions but the 2nd ammendment guarantees an individual right to own a firearm unconnected with military service. At least in our lifetime.

[iverglas]

59. doog bleeding dog

Nowhere did the dissenting 4 indicate weapons couldn't be kept in the home if connected to service in the militia.

And nowhere has anyone said they did.

The big reason might be that if they had done that, they would have been speaking entirely obiter dictum because nobody asked them to rule on whether weapons could be kept in the home blah blah.

For the love of jayzus. What the hell are you on about?


edit - you did mean to say:

Nowhere did the dissenting 4 indicate weapons couldn't be kept in the home if *UN*connected to service in the militia.

... right?

Because otherwise I would have no clue what you were attempting to say.

[jgraz]

60. And at what point do you plan on actually *understanding* it?

Nowhere did the dissenting 4 indicate weapons couldn't be kept in the home if connected to service in the militia. Worst case scenario I would petition VA to reactivate the VA irregular which would then protect my right to own a firearm. If I have a weapon in the home (even one whos "purpose" is furtherance of a militia) I find it unlikely the court would rule I have to let a crime happen rather than use it in self defense.

What they say is that you have no constitutionally-protected right to keep a gun in your home -- even as a member of a militia. If your state said that its militia members were prohibited from keeping their weapons in their homes, the four dissenting justices would be just fine with that.

IF you can find any evidence that one of the 4 believe Heller is a miscarriage of justice on the magnitude of Dread Scott then I think a reversal would be possible.

You don't need a Dred Scott decision to reverse a court opinion. All you need is for one of the Neanderthals to choke on a meatball.

Also, you may want to google Lawrence v. Texas. Bad court decisions don't necessarily last a lifetime, even if certain Justices do.


Given that the dissenting 4 DO believe the 2nd is a civil right just one limited in scope (connection to service in a militia) I find it extremely unlikely they would see defining a civil right "too broadly" to be a miscarriage of justice.

Actually, many court decisions affirm exactly that. Does the phrase "fire in a crowded theater" mean anything to you?

[Deadric Damodred]

62. Ok, it's obvious you really really really believe...

...that Heller will be reversed. You are wrong, but let's go with your idea. So what happens if they reverse it and say there is no right to bear arms, effectively voiding the 2nd Amendment? Lots of people own lots of guns...you think you can take'em? Nobody is going to hand you their property; you're going to have to take it by force.

[iverglas]

66. now let's put our thinking caps on

So what happens if they reverse it and say there is no right to bear arms, effectively voiding the 2nd Amendment? Lots of people own lots of guns...you think you can take'em?

I am constantly being told around here that "driving is a privilege". It isn't, but what the hell, we'll go with that.

So if there is no right to drive -- why hasn't somebody rounded up all your cars???

Think occasionally, hm?

The fact that a particular act isn't expressly protected in a constitution doesn't actually mean that somebody is going to outlaw it, or could legitimately do so.

[Deadric Damodred]

There are no lobbying groups that are out to ban cars.

If the 2nd Amendment was rendered useless, the anti-gun crowd would try to have bans all over the place.....and I'm willing to bet they would be stupid enough to try confiscation.

[jgraz]

71. OMG!!! Sarah Brady's gonna git our guns!!!! BOOGEDA BOOGEDA BOOGEDA!!!

Do you realize how pathologically paranoid you sound? Americans have no explicit constitutional right to have ANY particular item in their homes. And yet, when's the last time you heard of any government confiscation program for anything that wasn't already expressly illegal?

You do understand that you still have Fourth, Fifth and Sixth Amendment rights, don't you? Or whatever reasonable approximation is left after your NRA buddies -- and your hero Anthony Kennedy -- voted to put Bush in office...

[Deadric Damodred]

76. "wasn't already expressly illegal"

It's not pathologically paranoid. You gun-grabbers would, after rendering the 2nd Amendment void, say that all guns you don't like are illegal, with no grandfather clause. Meaning that even though people have spent their hard earned money on their gun collections, keeping them would be against the law. Talk about a nightmare scenerio, because Americans would not act like the subjects that the people in the UK and Australia are; they would not be lining up to hand over their expensive property. And you denying that your side would not immediately declare all semi-automatic handguns and rifles illegal is a blatant lie. You know you would, because that's the ultimate goal for you all. All I'm saying is, good luck taking them.

[jgraz]

78. Explain exactly how that would work

I mean, I hate Michael Bay movies. Plus, we have no constitutional protection to own or rent Michael Bay movies. But no one is calling for Michael Bay movies to be confiscated (though, now that I think about it...)

Yes, what you describe is literally a nightmare scenario: the only place it ever happens is in the nightmares of rabid pro-gun fanatics.


I think you sit around thinking of these scenarios because you're frustrated that you have no one to unload your weapons into. From most of your postings, it's clear that you get a perverse thrill out of fantasies where you shoot a bunch of your fellow human beings. Scary stuff.

[Deadric Damodred]

79. I find your perverse thrill of fantasies involving...

...butchering the Bill Of Rights to be scary stuff.

[jgraz]

80. Nice deflection

I think we can take that as a tacit admission that I'm on the money.

[jgraz]

68. Your only hope to keep Heller is more Republican presidents

Otherwise, the libs are going to be appointing the next 4 or 5 justices and you know how we are about gun rights.

However, I doubt your Red Dawn scenario of gun confiscation will ever come to pass (WOLVERIIIIINES!!). What will probably happen is more restrictions on new ownership, further limits on number and type of gun, strong regulation of manfacturing and ... finally, blessedly ... a sane tracking system where gun owners are forced to accept responsibility if a weapon they purchased is used in the commission of a crime.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

100. How many years till one of the Heller judges comes off the bench? 20 or 30 good luck with that.

[jgraz]

110. You think Fat Tony's gonna make it to 103? Good luck with that.

Obama or his successor will be appointing Scalia's replacement. Kennedy's also 73. You think he'll make it to 89? No? Then you'd better start voting Republican (assuming you're not doing so already).

But thanks, once again, for showing how many on this forum are rooting for a far-right dominated court to continue in perpetuity.

[iverglas]

65. yeah, I like to remind them

about Lawrence from time to time. ;)

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=180827&mesg_id=180981


Oh, and of who was on which side:

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_mesg&forum=118&topic_id=162994&mesg_id=163066

[Statistical]

74. Yup you got it.

SCOTUS routinely reverses itself. Often in a matter of days.

Lawrence v. Texas of course that is the proof......

In 2003 there were 78 cases heard by the SCOTUS. A whole 1 involved a direct reversal of previous SCOTUS decision. Wow. Thats almost 2% of cases.

Of course that was rather unusually because based on my cursory search in look like in the preceeding decade a whole 3 cases were direcly reversed out of 769 cases heard. Almost half a percent.

199 out of 200 SCOTUS cases are never even heard for arguments that could lead to a reversal.

Wow. Yup you got me. Hell no SCOTUS decision can be relied upon they can be cast aside on a whim or change in mood of the court.

Well I tell you what I'll keep buying guns and you keep hating them and we will just wait. I figure I should be alive another 40-45 years so maybe that will be enough time for your to come around and realize there is 0% chance Heller is going away.

Honestly I hope you keep banging your head against this wall that is never going away. Wasting time on fantasies of a magic SCOTUS reversal keep you from doing real damage against RKBA. So keep up the good fight I am sure that case will come down any decade now.

[jgraz]

77. OK, you go ahead and relax.

When Obama and his Democratic successor appoint the next 4 or 5 Supreme Court justices, we'll see how well this poorly-reasoned 5-to-4 decision ages.

[Statistical]

81. 75% of Americans believe the 2nd guarantees and individual right.

I am not sure if you have noticed or not but Obama doesn't really give a flying crap about your wet dream fantasies of wiping out the 2nd.

Only 28% of Americans believe handguns should be banned.

A substantial number of Democratic Senators signed a letter of support for Heller.
70 Democratic members of the house wrote an open letter indicating they would not support renewing assault weapons ban.

Obama signed a bill allowing carry in national parks. Obama essentially put a gag order on talk about guns from people in his administration because it got very quiet very arbuptly.

A majority of states (even Democratic ones) Attorney Generals support the McDonald case.

Where do you get this idea that the majority wants to eliminate the individual right protected by the 2nd?

Support for gun control FELL after Virginia Tech even mass shootings can't be exploited by gun grabbers anymore. You are in a small and shrinking minority.

Obama will do what will help Obama get re-elected and push things he cares about that is be a centrist. If you haven't figured it out already Obama isn't a far left liberal (despite what Rush says). Centrist tend to push views that are supported by the majority. 75% of Americans believing the 2nd guarantees an individual right, now that is the center.

Even if Obama could get an antigun justice of the supreme court it would have to be one who blatantly ignores Stare decisis a cornerstone of not just our judicial system but most western countries.

You kinda are lining up a bunch of dominoes that all have to fall
1) There is a vacancy in the court from one of the 5.
2) Obama cares enough to pack the court with anti gun zealots.
3) Obama gets that nomination through the senate.
4) Obama gets it right. Remember Souter was appointed by a Republican and many expected him to be conservative. Many Obama selects a very liberal judge who sees all civil rights as needing strict protection. DOH!
5) Said justice is willing to throw everything the legal system stands for to overturn a case where it is not necessary.


You need 5 of 5 for Heller to be overturned. For it to stand only 1 of 5 needs to fail.

[jgraz]

82. And 61% of Americans don't believe in evolution

Face it, most Americans are dumbshits. As are 5 of the 9 Supreme Court justices.

Of course, if the Supreme Court paid attention to majority opinion, Al Gore would have been president for the past 8 years (and Gore's court appointments would have made sure that Heller was correctly decided).

And, I'm not sure if you have noticed it or not, but Obama doesn't really give a flying crap about preserving your personal right to own a gun.

[Statistical]

83. I have no illusions there.

Obama is a centrists though and he is a very smart politician.

He is smart enough to see how gun control wrecked a governing majority in both houses in 1994.
The NRA defeated the speaker of the house. First time that has happened in like 100 years.

Obama is no friend of the 2nd but he would rather sidestep the entire issue and rack up points on issues Americans actually care about.

Face it guns aren't really that divisive. 30% feel it is a big deal, pro RKBA. 10% or so are rabid anti gun zealots. The other 60% don't really care. Centrists don't stay in power by picking an issue that only matters to the fringes.

It is going to be a long 8 years for you if you think there is no individual right, Heller will be overturned "soon", and Obama is a friend of gun control.

[jgraz]

84. Oh please, let's not rewrite history

Gun control had little or nothing to do with the House turnover in 94. Before you even consider gun issues, you have to look at the scandals that were plaguing the Democrats, the disaster know as HillaryCare, and a weak, centrist president who was abandoned by the left. 94 was a only victory for the NRA in that it was a victory for the NRA's chosen political party.

And Foley? Since when did the NRA defeat him? Foley lost because of his opposition to his own state's term limits. Nethercutt beat the shit out of him over that issue (and then, in true hypocritical Repuke fashion, he went on to serve five terms himself).

[Statistical]

85. So is Bill Clinton a shil for the NRA or just stupid?

Talking about the election night '94 and the fallout from AWB.

The NRA had a great night. They beat both Speaker Tom Foley and Jack Brooks, two of the ablest members of Congress, who had warned me this would happen. Foley was the first Speaker to be defeated in more than a century. Jack Brooks had supported the NRA for years and had led the fight against the assault weapons ban in the House, but as chairman of the Judiciary Committee he had voted for the overall crime bill even after the ban was put into it. The NRA was an unforgiving master: one strike and you're out. The gun lobby claimed to have defeated nineteen of the twenty-four members on its hit list. They did at least that much damage and could rightly claim to have made Gingrich the House Speaker.

His words from his book "my life".

So please excuse me if I take the word of a former President (and no friend of the NRA) who was actually there and participated in the decisions and meetings over someone on the internet who already has an anti-gun bias and believes gun control will strengthen the Democratic party.

[jgraz]

86. We all know what's up with Clinton: he's a liar

He's strongly invested in the NRA story because it A) deflects the blame off of his failures and B) scares the remaining Dems into adopting his other Republican policies.

[iverglas]

87. I just love this shit

Every time it gets dug up. Which is often.

Bill Clinton didn't say that gun control caused the defeats.

He said that the GUN LOBBY -- the NRA -- caused it.

See the difference at all?

I know I've never had any problem seeing it. I'm betting you don't either.

[Statistical]

93. And how did the NRA grow to have the power and influence it does today

with 4 million members and $205 million operating budget?

Was it in response to gun control or something else?

The NRA has been around for a century. It remained a relatively small organization even as late as 1980 campaign. It endorsed Reagan mainly because Carter put a lot of land off limits for hunters. The endorsement came late and NRA advertising budget was negligible. It was more focused on gun safety and competitions than national politics. Most of its political work was done at the local level (supporting a gun range, getting land rezoned, etc).

NRA membership exploded before, during, and after the AWB. The AWB was the single greatest thing that ever happpened to the NRA.

NRA Revenue
1986: 66 million
1994: $150 million

NRA Membmership
1986: 2.2 million
1994: 3.5 million

Revenue almost tripled and active memberships increased by 50%! Wonder what caused that..... hmmm.... let me think.
Oh yeah AWB was passed in 1994 and suddenly the idea that politicians will ban guns became real. It woke up a lot of people. Many people joined for the first time and long time members dumped a ton of money into the NRA.

So yeah if you want to get technical the gun lobby defeated Democrats but how and why? Oh yeah because of the stupid do nothing draconian gun laws they so smartly chose to pass in 1994.

Technical view:
Democrats pushing gun control as a solution -> AWB -> fear by gunowners -> NRA -> Democrats defeated.

Simplified view:
Democrats pushing gun control as a solution -> Democrats defeated.

[iverglas]

98. don't let's conflate, now

The NRA that Clinton was talking about wasn't actually the NRA.

I think this site has it right:

http://go-pacdutchess.org/_wsn/page4.html

Firstly, there is the NRA. The NRA is divided into several parts, all of which handle different things. We certainly hope you are a member of the NRA, and we support their efforts here in NY. Your basic NRA dues do NOT support political victory efforts.They support the shooting SPORTS/TRAINING in the USA. It is the NRA-Institute For Legislative Action (ILA) that is the official political arm of NRA which sends out the postcard alerts on legislation and maintains the NRA-ILA website for legislative action. They rate candidates. They do NOT make direct political contributions to campaigns.They support/oppose legislation by lobbying/political action. Also, there is the NRA-PVF (Political Victory Fund) this fund DOES contribute directly to political campaigns of our friends in mainly federal and state campaigns. They are authorized by the FEC (Federal Elections Commission) and thus they can contribute directly to federal political candidates.

So your little NRA facts and figures are kinda irrelevant.


So yeah if you want to get technical the gun lobby defeated Democrats but how and why?

Oh yeah because they're right-wing scum.

I knew you knew it.

[Statistical]

104. Run and hide but we are narrowing in....

So how where did the NRA-ILA and NRA-PVF get their funding from.

Oh yeah they send fund raising letters to NRA members.

Membership increased 50% and the rate they were donating money doubled.

NRA-ILA & NRA-PVF got a chunk of that. Sure it was separate but how many people looked carefully at the fund raising letter with giant NRA logo and (NRA-PVF) in small letters near the bottom.

They donated to the "NRA" and actually donated to NRA-PVF.

Once again why did membership go up?
Why were they suddenly willing to hand over 3x as much money in donations?

Oh yeah the AWB shocked many gun owners that politicians would actually ban guns.

[iverglas]

106. why, why, why

Because because because

The NRA political wing is operated by right-wing scum.

Some of the people who donate to its causes are right-wing scum, and some, as you are at pains to point out, are stupid.

Was there anything else now?

[Statistical]

114. So you are unable to find any link between

The AWB which was a do nothing law that was extremely unpopular with gun owners (even those with no intention on owning a "assault weapon", the rise in NRA membership and funding and the NRA-PVF actually having some teeth.

Those are just random unrelated events in your mind?

My guess is that politicians today put more causality into that chain then you do which is likely why the administration has shut up on guns and AWB II and other Draconian nonsense dies in committee very quickly (despite the Democrats having more control today then they did in 1994).

[iverglas]

129. "Those are just random unrelated events in your mind?"

Ah, it's one of those "questions" again. They're so charming, I never tire of them.

Why would you assert that they were random unrelated events in my mind? You did. Bugger the hokey question mark.

The fact that I don't agree that A caused B does not mean that I regard A and B as random unrelated events.

X came along and kicked up a big great big stink about A, and persuaded a lot of people to act in a manner that resulted in B.

I mean, you do know that somebody doing something doesn't actually cause somebody else do to something, right? Free will?

A bunch of people CHOSE to do something, and if you want to pretend ("guess") they would have chosen to do that in the absence of the dishonest, right-wing agenda-driven, richly funded stink kicked up by the political wing of the NRA, you go right ahead.

I won't pretend that any politician would not be smart to be wary of the NRA and its dishonesty, right-wingery and deep pockets.

[Statistical]

133. And why are they wary?

Maybe because NRA (x) wouldn't have been able to kick a big stick the AWB (a) which lead to loss of control in 1994 (b) had the Democrats not passed it in the first place.

The AWB was worthless. Utterly worthless. It was a failed legislation before the ink was dry. Had the Democrats actually achieved something meaningful and lost Congress as a result that would be one thing. If the Democrats trade real lasting healthcare reform for a loss in 2010 they would have at least something to show for the sacrifice. The anti-RKBA fringe in the Democratic party lost a governing majority for absolutely nothing.

So regardless of why the Democrats are wary of running down that rabbit hole the fact remains they are wary.

They are wary because their actions on the AWB cost them the 1994 election (which was the original point that was objected to) and now per your statement above make them wary it could happen again.

The NRA loved the AWB. $66M in annual funding prior to it compared to ~$200M in funding afterward. 15 years @ $130M extra funding. Shit thats almost $2B dollars that poured into the NRA from memberships & donations as a result of one (just one) stupid piece of legislation. The talking points have lasted just as long because idiots like Feinstein bring up the same tired memes everytime the NRA scare tactics start to wear off. Hell I wouldn't be surprised if secretly the NRA shovels campaign money her way because she is a target they can keep knocking down (and ring up the checks).

Was it worth it? No wonder most Democrats (except the same anti-RKBA fringe) don't want to touch worthless gun control with a 20ft pole.

Risk losing control of Congress again? For what? Some laws doomed to work from the start? To give the NRA another billion they can use to defeat Democrat candidates in the coming decade?

[Deadric Damodred]

135. "Oh but that gun you're using for home self-defense?...

...Hand it over."

And our response to your gun turn-in demand: You want some? Come get some.

[jgraz]

138. Deadric, you know you can't really shoot someone over an internet connection, don't you?

Just trying to save you thousands of dollars in monitor replacements...

[Deadric Damodred]

150. You know what you aren't thinking about?

Even if you got Heller reversed, you still have the problem of getting your bills passed. States that are pro-gun are not going to let your bullshit get passed in them; you'll only be able to make states that are anti-gun become even more anti-gun. And as far as the Federal level is concerned, you're STILL SCREWED, because there are enough Blue Dog Democrats (pro-gun Dems) in Congress to side with the GOP and strike down your legislation or pass their pro-gun legislation; as they have been showing you lately. So either way, we own your asses. When we say jump, you say "how HIGH?"

[jgraz]

157. And yet...

you're still barricaded in your bunker awaiting the gun confiscators. :crazy:

[iverglas]

160. FREEEEEEE

dumb.

[paulsby]

90. larry tribe agrees too. and lots of other scholars

liberal AND conservative. many scholars are honest enough to admit, such as tribe, that even if they oppose right to keep and bear arms as a POLICY, they admit it's protected by the constitution. is larry tribe a "neanderthal"?

that is at least honest, and i can respect that.

if you want to change the constitution, go ahead and try.

[X_Digger]

11. "most thinking progressives"

"most thinking progressives are in favor of gun control"

Therefore, if you're against gun control, you must not be a 'thinking progressive'?

.. and you were the one who brought up the 'no true scotsman' in another thread??

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=show_topic&forum=118&topic_id=236746#236793

[iverglas]

24. "and you were the one who brought up the 'no true scotsman' in another thread??"

I imagine so.

However, you're the one who did this:

"most thinking progressives are in favor of gun control"
Therefore, if you're against gun control, you must not be a 'thinking progressive'?

Kinda like:

Most human beings are women.
Therefore, if you're not a woman, you must not be a human being.

Your logic, not mine.


Not, of course, that if you're against gun control, you are not a 'thinking progressive' is a necessarily false statement ...

[X_Digger]

26. Either / or vs subset / superset..

I would have thought you'd see the inanity of your own attempt and changed it before hitting submit..

[iverglas]

27. I might think

you might want to read this last post of yours, and then the one to which I had replied.

You pretty much made my point here:

Either / or vs subset / superset

Ta.

[X_Digger]

30. *ring* *ring*.. "Hello?" "It's for you.. cluephone.."

Human / women is subset / superset, just like "all squirrels are mammals, but not all mammals are squirrels".

So no, that wasn't _my_ logic, that's all you.

_My_ point was the 'no true scotsman' logical fallacy of "most thinking progressives are in favor of gun control", and the implication / backhanded insult that those who aren't for gun control must not be 'thinking progressives'.

[iverglas]

49. your keyboard keeps flapping

and you keep pretending it isn't saying what it's saying.

What jgraz's keyboard did NOT say was:

ALL thinking progressives are in favour of gun control.

You seem to want to pretend it did, but it didn't.

So you may as well give up now.

[jgraz]

32. Also, most thinking progressives...

understand the meaning of "most".

[Tim01]

16. "most thinking progressives are in favor of gun control" Wow, reality is going to clobber you. nt

[jgraz]

33. Lucky for me, reality doesn't own a firearm

The pro-gun position is an inherently *regressive* position, as you, yourself, have demonstrated on many occasions.

Wasn't it just last night that you proclaimed how your Great and Powerful Gun was the only thing standing between me and a cell in Gitmo? Well, I hate to break it to you, but believing that violent threats trump ideals is a *regressive* position. Believing that the nature of poverty and crime will never change so we don't dare tinker with our gun policy is a fundamentally *regressive* position.

And believing that your personal firearm is higher priority than making sure the poor and sick get healthcare is not just regressive, it's downright Republican.

[gorfle]

39. It's already lost.

For the past few decades, there has been no coherent policy debate on gun control.

This is because the anti-gun folks can't form one. For the anti-gun folks, there is but one agenda: the elimination, by the most draconian means they can get away with, of all firearms.

Of course such a basis for policy is immediately a non-starter. So for years they have instead nibbled around the edges, using stealth, guile, and deception, all under the mask of "reasonable gun control", in an attempt to slowly boil the frog.

Fortunately, this is one turd that no bow is pretty enough to disguise. And with the ever-growing pervasiveness of the Internet, it's going to be harder and harder to find a bow that is up to the task.

We don't need to reject gun rights in order to reject right-wing, regressive, and decidedly Republican ideals. I know being "progressive" means you're supposed to be more in favor of collective ideals rather than individual ones, but I don't understand why we can't have a pro-environment, pro-social-program, pro-healthcare, anti-corporate, anti-warmongering government while embracing the personal responsibility for defense against oppression.

[jgraz]

42. Wrong, wrong, wrong and oh, btw, wrong.

You have no idea what sane gun policy advocates want or believe. You've just swallowed the standard NRA/GOP pablum and now you're puking it up for all of us.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

50. Then enlighten us with your wisdom. What do sane gun policy advocates want and believe?

[jgraz]

56. That's all part of the journey, Dave.

I've been pretty clear on what I believe, so you'll excuse me if I don't feel like regurgitating five years of posting history tonight.

However, I do hope you'd agree that this: For the anti-gun folks, there is but one agenda: the elimination, by the most draconian means they can get away with, of all firearms.

is a pretty fucking boneheaded statement.

[E-Mag]

58. Well I just showed up here can I

Have the cliff notes version?

[jgraz]

61. Aw, romance is dead.

Part of the fun is where you and I get to gradually know each other.

[E-Mag]

64. I dont understand the

relationship comments. In my short time here I have been accused of proposing and now this. Do you think that that hides you inability/unwillingness to answer the question.

[jgraz]

69. I'm in no way hiding my unwillingness to answer the question

I'm tired, I have an early meeting and, if I make the mistake of publishing the JGraz Manifesto on Gun Policy, I'll end up spending all night online defending each niggling little point.

[E-Mag]

70. I look foward to reading it tomorrow.

When you are well rested. Sweet Dreams.

[jgraz]

72. Just so you're not disappointed

I have no intention of publishing an extended treatise on gun policy tomorrow either.

(And not the day after tomorrow either)

[E-Mag]

73. Ok got it!

You are unwilling to answer questions you just are not hiding it. Thanks for clearing that up.

[jgraz]

75. Oh, I'll be happy to answer most questions

Just not "tell us everything you and every gun control advocate think about gun policy".

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

102. But you are so willing to tell us "gun nuts" what we believe. Why is that?

[jgraz]

112. Because someone needs to do it.

God knows you guys have enough trouble sorting it out for yourselves.

[Name removed]

165. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

101. You anti-gun folks idea of compromise is that gun owners agree to your demands.

That is pretty boneheaded.

David

[jgraz]

111. Um, Dave? That's EVERYONE'S idea of compromise

You agree with some of our demands, we agree with some of yours. It's pretty much exactly what the word means...

[X_Digger]

140. If that actually happens, then good..

For a long time, 'compromise' has meant "we'll only take half what we want now, and we'll get the rest later."

An honest "give us this and we'll give you that" will be a welcome change.

[jgraz]

143. Heh, compromisers always think "we'll get the rest later"

If they didn't think that, no one would ever compromise. However, once a compromise is reached, absolutism becomes harder to justify.

The problem that I see is we have extremists at the NRA poisoning the well. It would be nice to have a balancing extreme on the other side (even if I might disagree with them), but it just doesn't exist.

It's pretty hard to compromise when your opening position is "from my cold, dead hands".

[X_Digger]

146. Ehn.. compromise is rare, more often quid pro quo

.. hence some of the amendments that get glommed onto bills.

When people get upset that unrelated amendments get tacked onto legislation, I think they forget that such is the 'cost' for support from some members of congress. 'In order to get support from Senator Doe for X, we have to hold our nose and approve his amendment about subject Y.'

If you're characterizing the NRA as an absolutist, at the far end of the scale, I think you'd be hard pressed to support that proposition. Historically, the NRA(x) has supported many gun control laws, most recently the expanded reporting criteria for NICS in the wake of the VT shootings.

To your point about there being an 'equal but opposite' balancing influence, I can't think of a group off the top of my head, either. The Brady bunch seems to be pretty far past the NRA in the other direction (see Helmke's recent statement about banning all semi-automatics, their plans for Brady II, or the leaked '93? memo about their five year plan).

[jgraz]

154. Oh come on. Even strong pro-gun people acknowledge that the 93 memo is a hoax.

Here's a gungeon discussion from last year: http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=118x160148.

[X_Digger]

156. Ehn.. looks embellished, but Brady II had many of the provisions..

.. so it seems to be based in fact, if taken to a ludicrous extreme. Still, when Helmke talks about banning all semi-auto's, it gives a fairly extreme impression.

[iverglas]

174. whaddaya do??

When you're dealing with people who BELIEVE / PRETEND TO BELIEVE* shit like the memo hoax?


* different things illustrating different problems -- willingness to believe nonsense & repeat it w/o verifying it vs. willingness to say things known to be false -- but leading to the same result: there's just no meaningful conversation possible.

[Statistical]

144. So what pro-RKBA demands would you be willing to compromise on?

Many on DU have expressed a number of places they are willing to offer concessions.

One point that is almost completely accepted is a Universal NICS (thus closing the so called "gun show loophole". The only disagreement is over how it should be done.

What pro-RKBA requests would you be willing to trade for a Universal NICS?
* National reciprocity of CCW (in states that allow some form of CCW)?
* Ending the 1986 ban on automatic weapons (although still subject to NFA strict licensing)?
* Ending discriminator "may issue" = "may infringe" CCW licensing?
* Preventing use of excessive fees to infringe on right RKBA (fees should cover cost of program).

IF both sides are willing to give something then it is a compromise but unlike pro-RKBA members of this site you have never indicated a willingness to compromise on anything.

You are still unable to even accept the 2nd protects and individual right.

[jgraz]

158. Why would I need to compromise? I'm 100% pro-RKBA

...as outlined in the Second Amendment of the Constitution. I will never stop fighting for your individual right to join any well-regulated state militia that will take you.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

164. A prime example of unwillingness to compromise.

[Fire_Medic_Dave]

163. That learning disability is cropping up again it seems.

The anti-gun folks aren't willing to make any concessions. That was the point.

David

[gorfle]

103. We'll see, friend.

We'll see, my friend. Right now it looks like firearms rights are on the up-swing, and it looks like President Obama's administration won't touch the issue with a ten-foot pole. Maybe that will change in his second term, I don't know.

[jgraz]

159. Obama doesn't need to deal with the issue

He just needs to replace one pro-Heller vote with one that agrees with the minority. Scalia and Kennedy are 73. What are the odds they both last through Obama's second term? What are the odds they last through the terms of Obama's Democratic successor?

[gorfle]

170. You're right.

You're right, but precedent is currently in favor of gun rights. It's possible a more liberal supreme court might reverse some of the progress, but I'm doubtful.

[jgraz]

171. The dissents are pretty strong, IMHO.

And they point out that the majority violates precedent established in US v Miller. Future liberal jurists may see a reversal as merely restoring prior settled law.

[X_Digger]

175. Have you read Miller?

Nevermind that short barreled shotguns actually _were_ used in the trenches in WWI, (and later in WWII & Vietnam).. Miller had died, and wasn't represented- nobody from the defense was there.

Bad precedent based on wrong facts and not argued by the defendant.. you _really_ want to hang your hopes on that?

[paulsby]

89. supporting civil rights doesn't make you "pro gun"

any more than supporting choice makes me "pro abortion".

it's the exact same specious logic.

[jgraz]

115. And being pro-gun certainly doesn't mean you support civil rights

As this group's cheerleading for Roberts, Alito, Thomas, Kennedy and Scalia clearly demonstrates.

[paulsby]

149. and again

being pro RKBA means you are pro civil rights vis a vis the 2nd amendment.

it doesn't mean you support the 1st. heck, i've seen plenty of post by people on this website who don't support the 1st (they want to ban "hate speech" etc.) or the 4th, or the 5th, etc.

i support them all

[ZombieHorde]

2. I sent a pro cannibalism email to the whitehouse.

Times are tough and many feel we are over populated.

They wrote back and said they were working on the bill already. I said, "Sweet.", but then they said, "No. Savory."

[burrfoot]

6. - Reply to the whole thread -

the way I see this:

Tim wrote to the White House about an issue that's important to him.

Jgraz wrote to the White House about some issues that are important to him.

So...multiple people wrote to the White House about multiple issues, that are important to them.

Why the negative comments?

Good job, both of you guys.

:headbang:

Zombie- not knocking you. I would venture that if Dems dropped this issue more would be gained than would be lost. Granted, that's entirely a biased opinion with nothing to back it up, so it's essentially meaningless. Just an "I think." :shrug:

[jgraz]

8. You asked why the negative comments...

because there is no legislation pending before Congress and no current policy debate that's even remotely related to the 2nd Amendment. Tim can do whatever he wants, but most Democrats are concerned with issues that are actually in play at the moment.

We really need all hands on deck for this healthcare debate. Writing Obama about gun policy is about as helpful as writing him about the moon landing. It isn't going to change anything and it borders on obsessive behavior.

[X_Digger]

21. No pending legislation?

HR45 (admittedly, hasn't moved since Feb), S843, HR2202, HR17.. those are the ones off the top of my head.. I know there are some others that are actually pro-gun (I think HR 17 is a tax credit for buying a gun safe, or maybe that's 2202)..

There are _always_ gun bills being introduced in the house (pro and con) and some in the senate. (Lautenberg's S843 comes to mind.)

[jgraz]

36. I'll bet Tim didn't mention or even know about any of those.

[iverglas]

14. I just went for a pee

Happy now?

[Tim01]

15. I hear Canadians don't have indoor plumbing.

How far to your out house?

[iverglas]

17. special delivery for you

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0bCyy7q_ylc

All "pro-gun Democrats" will love it.

[iverglas]

18. who the hell's Tom Vilsack?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ydw4kj9P90w&feature=related

(It's okay, I looked it up.)

[iverglas]

22. and then there's my boy Joe!

http://www.desmoinesregister.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20071020/OPINION/71017035/-1/RSS22

Click on

"If you had to live in another country, which would it be and why?"

in the list on the left, and Joe should be first in line.

[iverglas]

25. oh, I get it

How far to your out house?

You meant my other house.

This house, where my office is, only has two bathrooms. One on each floor.

My other house does have three. Oh, okay, one's in the basement and hasn't been seen since the big reno job many years ago when it became unnecessary, so only two in use. One on each of the first two floors but none on the third. May have to do something about that next reno time.

So I have four bathrooms and a spare. And you?

[Tim01]

28. Yep. That's what I meant. nt

[tularetom]

19. Helping my neighbor tear down an old corral on her property

She has an old Cat D-4 but she doesn't operate it so well so she asked if I could help.

It "cooled down" to the low 90's today so we were able to get the whole thing torn down and the wood stacked up.

She even furnished the beer.

[Tim01]

20. Hell, that sounds like my day. Are you in the East? nt

[tularetom]

23. No, Central California

"Above the fog and below the snow" in the Mother Lode country.

[Tim01]

29. How about that. Are you out of the mountains then?

Around here the mountains are cool and the flat lands are like a desert, sort of.

[tularetom]

31. We're at 1500 - 1800 feet. Some oak trees, a few pines but mostly grasslands

Summer days usually top out in the high 90's. No rain to speak of from May to November. Once in awhile we get a thunderstorm.

Winters are beautiful. Highs 50-60, lows in the 20's. Fair amount of rain at our altitude.

Snow very rare at our elevation but 30 miles away (and another 3000 feet higher) they can get 2-3 feet at a time.

Lot's of quail, dove some pheasants and even a few turkeys. A bird hunter's paradise.

[Tim01]

109. My area is wetter. With more deer than birds.

We should have a hunting trade.;)

[derby378]

105. I've been reaching out to my local Democratic neighbors in a magazine article

http://www.dmagazine.com/Home/2009/07/01/A_Liberal_Democrat_Who_Loves_Guns.aspx

[iverglas]

107. sigh; again? (edited)

Damned shameless self-promotion, eh?


Snork. Going well, is it?

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/09/open-letter-to-amendment-ii-democrats.html

http://waronguns.blogspot.com/2007/08/second-amendment-democrats-respond.html


Rational, decent folk to the left of you, gun militant scum to the right of you, and there you are, trying to be stuck in the middle ... and wasting your time, I think.


edit, re the second link above, being your own words:

Somehow, I just don't see the use of the expression anti-RKBA Democrats to be real, uh, how shall I put it ... pro-Democrat ...

[derby378]

134. Did you have a point?

:shrug:

[Tim01]

139. Maybe if she insults you enough

you will say something you shouldn't and get kicked off this site.
She mentioned one time that a lot of people who argue with her get kicked off. Makes sense, doesn't it.

[Name removed]

145. Deleted message

Message removed by moderator. Click here to review the message board rules.

[derby378]

161. We're all cats in this bag

:hi:

[Tim01]

169. Back at you.

:hi:

[eqfan592]

162. Excuse me...

...but why did my post get removed? Is recommending for somebody to put another user on ignore in order to avoid other potentially more ridiculous issues now considered a direct, personal attack?

[Tim01]

166. I have no idea.??? nt

[eqfan592]

167. Sorry Tim...

..hope you didn't think that was directed at you. More to the mod's, and the universe in general. :P

[Tim01]

168. Oh, I understand. It's all good. nt

[Scout]

172. if you ask the mods nicely, they will tell you why your post was deleted n/t

[iverglas]

173. do ask the moderators

My understanding is that if a poster claims to have put another poster on ignore, she is not then entitled to roam the forum posting commentary about the poster who is allegedly on ignore.

Maybe someone will pass this on to you, with my best wishes.

:rofl:

[Tim01]

108. I've seen that. That's pretty cool. nt