-
If you enjoy the forum please consider supporting it by signing up for a NES Membership The benefits pay for the membership many times over.
-
Be sure to enter the NES/MFS May Giveaway ***Canik METE SFX***
Scalia: Guns May be Regulated
- Thread starter soloman02
- Start date
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
After watching Justice Scalia's interview in whole, it should be noted he does state any restrictions on the 2nd Amendment would be limited to the confines of orginalist interprtation.
At 6:56: http://www.foxnews.com/on-air/fox-n...tonin-scalia-issues-facing-scotus-and-country
That's a big deal, and one that hasn't seemed to show its face in this thread so far.
In God We Trust
NES Member
I don't think that anyone really believes this. Not trying to be a dick or anything. Even the founding fathers recognized that government had a legitimate function despite all their attempts to limit it's power and scope. Protection of the citizens was one of it's primary functions and I believe that WMDs would fall under common sense regulation.
I am completely against gun control in all its forms, but hypothetically if anyone could freely buy a nuke that wanted one, our planet would be as desolate as Mars by now. The nuke argument is liberal troll bait and I don't want to seem to be trolling, I was just curious what people's arguments for or against such regulation would be among the rabidly pro 2A crowd we have here.
ROTFLMAO! I've never seen so many ignorant people with the inability to think critically. It's almost enough to revive the idea of forced sterilization of mental defectives. And that children is the last I will engage ya'll on this thread. Thank you and good luck.![[rofl]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/013.gif "ROFL [rofl]")
dude, you have a BG380 as your avatar. you're retarded.
namedpipes
NES Member
ROTFLMAO! I've never seen so many ignorant people with the inability to think critically. It's almost enough to revive the idea of forced sterilization of mental defectives. And that children is the last I will engage ya'll on this thread. Thank you and good luck.
Dammit we broke another toy.
namedpipes
NES Member
I finally listened all the way through.
"Originalist" means taking into account the mindset of the framers at the time the Constitution was written.
My problem with that is, the mindset that is picked for comparison. Scalia talks a little about "afrighting", the idea that the colonials believed in some level of gun control and so on.
That's the mindset, possibly, of a person in "normal" times of that era. But what about the mindset of a person sick of being oppressed. A person that has reached the point that revolution is necessary. A person mindful that the government he is creating right now will in all probability grow to point, eventually, where it is just as bad or worse than what they face now.
OTOH, affirming in law the right of the People to rebel and reform the government, just as THEY had done, is a recipe for endless, frivolous rebellion. Do we have the right to retake our government because we don't like speedtraps or the amount of money wasted on new firetrucks? NO[SUP]*[/SUP]. We have the right to do so when "Government becomes destructive of these ends". The 2nd amendment ensures that should things ever come to a point where the People need to act, they can.
In the context of the mindset that *I* believe was in play, the 2nd would be interpreted such that we have the unalienable right to possess, carry and employ firearms of a power and nature sufficient for those purposes.
I admit I'm stumped for an answer when the discussion drifts to nuclear, gas, germ warfare.
He goes on to say some disturbing things about handheld weapons, privacy and wiretapping, which leads me to believe he might not entirely share my viewpoint.
[SUP]*[/SUP] Although we DO have the right to bitch about it!
And why is there anything wrong with that? That doesn't automatically equate to someone getting harmed by this person.
It's just living proof that the major media outlet spins what it wants to its own ends, for its moonbat agenda. The headline says "Scalia likes gun restrictions!" more or less without actually going into detail- to convey the thought of "even conservatives on the supreme court think we need gun restrictions!" or some crap like that.
I've also been seeing a lot of these lame editorials written by fudds that have a summary version of "I'm a gun owner and I don't think we need assault rifles. I shoot trap on sundays and hunt." Same thing over and over again. They are like mini rosenthals- you mean to tell me the media outlets couldn't have found someone else? None of the millions of people who bought handguns and semiautomatic rifles in the past 10-15 years can write? Is that so? Major media outlets are a bunch of douchebags. It's like earth to CNN- a lot of the people going to gun shops in the past 10 years or so are no longer the fudds you're looking for. New gun owners are buying all the guns that you a**h***s hate- not to mention, lot of existing gun owners not quite full fuddy are warming up to these guns as well, after shooting their friends/sons/daughters AR or AK and deciding they want one.
-Mike
And they were at their peak in spinning this! I watched the same interview and frankly I did not grow overly concerned about a change in his position and he certainly does not appear to have re-thought his opinion on 2A. Sure, I won't be able to get that hand held rocket launcher or carry my head axe in the open and in public but I can live within what I have under the circumstances.
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2010
- Messages
- 6,920
- Likes
- 615
I agree with this 100% as being the original intent, and the only one that really matters!
I'm a realist and I don't think the absolutist agenda is practical or achievable in the short to medium term, possibly on any term in this country. There aren't enough people who believe in it and, for better or worse, that is required for something to become reality in the US...even natural rights.
However, we need to be vigilant about the reasons the second amendment exists. I am less worried about licensing requirements and background checks as I am about people losing their right to bear arms entirely (Boston, NYC) and restrictions on the types of weapons we can own. The second amendment is a not-irrelevant check on government power (see our conflicts in the middle east as proof) and we need to keep an eye on that.
There's no reason at all that a law abiding citizen should not be able to own a drum mag or carry a gun in NYC. None.
If we're going to compromise, we need to look at the concerns that gun control advocates have and try to address those without compromising the overall intent of the second amendment.
And if you examine things closely enough, you will discover that it is pretty much impossible to do this. Most gun control is infringing.
One other problem is the "concerns gun control advocates have" are just a facade. They're not really concerned about violent crime, otherwise they'd be looking into other issues as well, not just banning guns all the time. Their main concern is banning guns.
Licensing and background checks are also still serious issues- particularly when many of those types of systems are operated at the whim of the government. See also- the feds wanting to add the "no fly list" and various other mental health DQs to the list of prohibited persons. Those two issues are a devices that the government can easily abuse to deprive people of rights.
-Mike
So, the incompleteness theorem is basically accepted by mathematicians agreeing that there is an arbitrary element in just about everything.. unfortunately it's true. Law is not truth... it is based entirely off a system that we just arbitrarily agreed was the way things should be (exactly like economics - the values and rules we use don't matter, but they will determine how we do business). I suppose my issue is with "Law Scientists". Its not science.
Anyway, I still disagree this applies to law (as law is ENTIRELY arbitrary and based on emotion at the time of writing i.e.: Do this! Why? I said so! No! God said so! ... ok).
Ya, I don't disagree with any of this, especially after seeing the cluster **** in the wake of the Colorado shootings. People who have no business talking about gun control policy are mouthing off like it's their job. The only saving grace was just how many people seemed to be speaking up against it. That was encouraging.
But, you're right, and the agenda of the state is certainly to ban guns as well and they'll use whatever support they can get to get that agenda done. All of the civil rights infringements (warrant-less wiretapping, Utah data center, "free speech zones", the numerous other assaults on the fourth amendment, etc.) are obviously a power grab. The upper class is orchestrating things so that they and their descendants can remain the upper class at any cost.
God bless you, Mr. Rosewater by Vonnegut is sort of an interesting look at this type of thing. Just finished reading that.
In reality you don't need to regulate guns because there not the problem, violence in people is the true problem and most of it is due to the people in charge not figuring out how to make the economy and life better, all there focuses are on reelection and keeping there position
namedpipes
NES Member
I'm happy to blame Obama and his leadership on a lot of things, but he didn't drive Holmes crazy.
The kind of violence that causes a person to kill innocents is a mental disease, not a product of poor leadership / economy.
(IMO)
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Almost.
Originalism means giving the text the meaning and context the language had to the people who ratified it, not those who wrote it or put it forth. In almost every instance, it's a distinction without a difference, but it's an important one. The reason being one of originalism's main draws as a legal philosphy is that it keeps the Constitution a democratic document and confines judging to what the people who ratfied the document thought it meant. After all, as Scalia notes later in the interview, the rights amendments are democratic provisions put in place by a supermajority that prevent future simple majority from passing laws in certain areas. So if we were to use the Framer's version of what they thought the provision to mean, and if the Framers vision of what they put forth to be ratified differs at all from what those who ratified the provision thought it meant, the Constitution ceases to be a truly democratic document.
I generally agree, but the mindset your picking for comparison is that of the democratic majority.
When you reach the point of revolution, the Constitution has become meaningless to you anyways--otherwise, you're committing treason which the Constitution specifcially prohibits.
His points here were this:
1) The 2nd Amendment does not protect the rights of citizens to own weapons that they cannot "bare" or otherwise hold in their hands.
- Interesting debate. To argue effectively against it using orginalism, you'd have to go back and figure out just how much weight to give the word "bear" and ensure those who ratified the 2nd Amendment didn't take "bear" carry its most literal meaning.
2) There is no general right to privacy in the Constitution.
- He's right--there is none, at least none expressly stated. I actually disagree with him here and believe in the prenumbral reasoning Justice Douglas used in the Griswold decision. What I don't agree with is that somehow that right to privacy somehow extends to matters of abortion and contraception.
3) The 4th Amendment does not protect the people from wiretapping because it isn't an individuals' person, house, papers, or effects.
- Here I think Scalia is also wrong, because I don't think Scalia properly calculates the trajectory of the right as applied to the new phenomina--the telephone. The question that has to be answered when applying originalism to new phenomina is always tough one: What would the people have ratified the amendment thought that phenomina was protected had they had it at the time? Just as your papers which would include correspondence to aquaintences, a phone conversation is essentially just a modern version of that.
Last edited:
- Joined
- May 3, 2009
- Messages
- 5,419
- Likes
- 1,899
Or them.
It's not even necessarily just about looking extremist--it's also self-presevation, at least for the politicians. It's about threatening and potentially killing THEM. Generally, a person isn't going to further an argument which threatens their own power.
You've raised a couple of interesting issues. It's not so much arbitrariness, as it is fomality of whatever system one is examining be it law, religion, ethical systems, economic systems, language.........I suppose to the extent that values are chosen that underpin a formal system, there is something of an arbitrariness to that. But, once those values are chosen and a logical, formal system is created, there will always exist a truth outside the system that may negate values in the system. There are rules in a variety of systems that we use to live by. What Goedel tells us is that those rules are not of themselves immutable. We have to be open to the possibility of change. That is why the law is not and never has been static. It is constantly evolving. How it should evolve can be argued by jurists such as a Scalia seeking the original intent of the framers or the late Justice Douglas with his penumbras of rights.
All systems contain arbitrariness in selection of values, but we just have to live with that until the field of quantum mechanics and/or the CERN collider find the absolute of the Universe. Maybe that will be the final proof of God's existence. That said, I have long accepted that Bishop's Finger Kentish ale is proof of God's existence and jovial nature.
![[wink]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/002.gif "Wink [wink]")
Last edited:
You've raised a couple of interesting issues. It's not so much arbitrariness, as it is fomality of whatever system one is examining be it law, religion, ethical systems, economic systems, language.........I suppose to the extent that values are chosen that underpin a formal system, there is something of an arbitrariness to that. But, once those values are chosen and a logical, formal system is created, there will always exist a truth outside the system that may negate values in the system. There are rules in a variety of systems that we use to live by. What Goedel tells us is that those rules are not of themselves immutable. We have to be open to the possibility of change. That is why the law is not and never has been static. It is constantly evolving. How it should evolve can be argued by jurists such as a Scalia seeking the original intent of the framers or the late Justice Douglas with his penumbras of rights.
All systems contain arbitrariness in selection of values, but we just have to live with that until the field of quantum mechanics and/or the CERN collider find the absolute of the Universe. Maybe that will be the final proof of God's existence. That said, I have long accepted that Bishop's Finger Kentish ale is proof of God's existence and jovial nature.
Hmm... I agree with what you've said in relation to evolution of law and justice, however to remain on (the fringe of) topic - given the entire point of Godel's theorem, "provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ..." , it would seem orthogonal to the point he was trying to make when/if applied to law (as suggested, truth as it pertains to law is based on the foundation of arbitrary choices - therefore objectively only, it remains true). In short, I suppose my issue is with Kelsen (or my own limitations regarding law).
ROTFLMAO! I've never seen so many ignorant people with the inability to think critically. It's almost enough to revive the idea of forced sterilization of mental defectives. And that children is the last I will engage ya'll on this thread. Thank you and good luck.
So it's true, you ARE a Nazi.
I get what your saying but disagree. people like holmes are out there and you cant just pick them out of crowd or stop them with regulations and bans. Bombs are illegal yet he still made them.
But people who have nothing to loose will do things uncharacteristic in bad economic times compared to what there norm is in good economic times when they can get a good job and pay there bills.
If people in washingtom wanted to help stop the the vilolence and murder that kills way more people each year then the mentally ill, getting this economy up and more jobs in this contry should be a top priority,
you need only look at history to see that with more poverty and hardships there is more violence and crime.
This regulation thing is just crap to get the sheeple and anti's off there backs and make them happy with there false sense of safety.
Last edited:
I think if you want to find a root cause there, it is likely 1 part social, 2 parts chemical and another part random chance of brain development. Crazy people happen under the best of circumstances, but the "everyone wins" and "better living through chemistry" generation(s) have done us no favors in the people they have produced utterly lacking in coping skills, and chemically imbalanced in ways not possible in nature with drugs we don't fully understand administered to developing minds (kids) with side effects we are only beginning to fully understand the long term consequences of...
I will leave that second part (deleted) out, but I disagree - I read the 4th amendment's "security" in your "persons, houses, papers, and effects, against unreasonable searches and seizures" as a right of privacy in fitting with a MUCH more modest society in general that had a much stronger view of your home (and person) as inviolate than what we have today (unfortunately).OfficerObie59 said:
Last edited:
I say its a good point about the use of pills and drugs that are unnecessary on kids just because they dont focuse like the others or what not, id say among the kids that do benefit and need medication there is alot more that dont or are over medicated, and who knows the true effects this has on each individual, Not to mention combined with other drugs of the illegal variety.
We really dont know yet if holmes was ever actualy on an drugs of any kind that could cause this but im sure a lawyer would use this in the trial if he could and then sue a drug company, but i kid.
Last edited:
Kelsen had been very difficult to deal with until the application of Goedel to his theories. That was discussed in various jurisprudence departments in law schools in the mid-1970s. There was an interdisciplinary project at Harvard at that time between the HLS and the Harvard Divinity School that was exploring this and other issues around the breakdown and replacement of Natural Law Theory. I would have loved to have participated in that , but it really required a working knowledge of Latin that I don't have. I had a law school professor who still wanted me to participate, but........wish I had. Sigh.Hmm... I agree with what you've said in relation to evolution of law and justice, however to remain on (the fringe of) topic - given the entire point of Godel's theorem, "provability is a weaker notion than truth, no matter what axiom system is involved ..." , it would seem orthogonal to the point he was trying to make when/if applied to law (as suggested, truth as it pertains to law is based on the foundation of arbitrary choices - therefore objectively only, it remains true). In short, I suppose my issue is with Kelsen (or my own limitations regarding law).
It's very clear that most posters here have no appreciation of these issues and simply respond with invective. If you want to have coffee or a pint and discuss this further, let me know.
Last edited:
This thread is like a bad remake of "Good Will Hunting". The right of self preservation is a birth right, I don't need a f-ing piece of paper to tell me otherwise.
namedpipes
NES Member
![[grin]](/xen/styles/default/xenforo/smilies.vb/041.gif "Grin [grin]")
Similar threads
