Scalia: Guns May be Regulated

[gearjunky13]

The right of self preservation is a birth right, I don't need a f-ing piece of paper to tell me otherwise.

This is all that need be said, all though went through 24 pages to get here.

 

[drgrant]

No, I understand clearly. Your logic only exists in college, graduate school, or professional school.

To me, what he is posting sounds like moonbat claptrap from the "the constitution is a living document" club.

**** change. There is enough "change" we have to deal with in the other 99% of our lives without letting a bunch of moonbats undermine our fundamental rights, because they happen to believe in a bunch of mathematical theories invented long after the founders had died.

-Mike

 

[Baikal49]

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.

I agree with what you say. The issue is very much restricting laws that unnecessarily limit the ability of citizens with no criminal record to carry and also carry concealed. NYC is totally absurd. If you were an Olympic 10 meter air pistol or rifle competitor, you would be totally stymied by NYC laws related to air guns.

 

[Baikal49]

To me, what he is posting sounds like moonbat claptrap from the "the constitution is a living document" club.

**** change. There is enough "change" we have to deal with in the other 99% of our lives without letting a bunch of moonbats undermine our fundamental rights, because they happen to believe in a bunch of mathematical theories invented long after the founders had died.

-Mike

Moonbats aren't as dangerous as donkey squirrels. BTW, the theorem existed before the founders were even born. Like Higgs Boson, it was just waiting to be discovered.

 

[drgrant]

Moonbats aren't as dangerous as donkey squirrels. BTW, the theorem existed before the founders were even born. Like Higgs Boson, it was just waiting to be discovered.

That's great, but the fact that the theorem(s) existed or didn't exist doesn't invalidate natural rights as a concept.

-Mike

 

[namedpipes]

...

Tell the truth. You love us.

 

[Baikal49]

That's great, but the fact that the theorem(s) existed or didn't exist doesn't invalidate natural rights as a concept.

-Mike

Per St. Augustine or St Thomas?

- - - Updated - - -

Tell the truth. You love us.

Of course.

 

[ChevyGuy91]

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.

You know, I was going to puff up my chest and fire off a righty into this circle jerk, but this post says it all.

 

[Sinitron]

No, I understand clearly. Your logic only exists in college, graduate school, or professional school.

His logic is from various schools. He was a middle and high school teacher as well. PM me for details.

At least he changed his signature on the forum, the last one was an eyesore.

MY belief that I have a right of self-defense has in fact led me to obtain an unrestricted LTC A and CC.It is the reason that I CC. I do not CC just for the fun of it. In fact, I have during the past 5 years been involved in Federal civil litigation in CA and TX that led to a Secret Service investigation of our adversaries and the indictment and conviction of one person thus far. That has resulted in death threats against me and others involved in the case. That's another reason I CC.

Uh huh. I hope the evil forces of the world aren't renting satellites to track you down. I typed a few of your statements into Google and you aren't exactly living underground.

This thread started off well, but got derailed something fierce.

Good luck with the BG380, I hear it has a very long trigger to get used to. Let's try to be happy and enjoy our rights for carry, regardless of what looms ahead.

 

[In_God_We_Trust]

Some food for thought:

1) If we dwell in a finite world created by an infinite God, is not a Godelian theorem exactly what we should expect to find?

2) Why was it that Christian theology and Christian thinkers impelled the major modern developments in infinity theory?

3) Since mathematical theory ultimately rests on faith, why do you denounce Christianity for resting on faith? (Considering the US was founded on the Christian faith.)

4) The history of science shows that strictly mechanistic views of the world have consistently failed to hold up: Why not acknowledge that the world is not strictly mechanistic as materialistic explanations must suppose?

5) In light of Godel's proofs and Christ's transfinite claims, won't you yield yourself to God?


To dissolve the fact that everyone is born with certain rights is to allow people to become a number in horrific mathematical plot to take control people's lives.

 

[PWM]

3) Since mathematical theory ultimately rests on faith

Math rests on truth (and provability - enter Godel). Not faith. Hence the distinction between Science and well... everything else.

The only mathematical theory that I am aware of that is considered valid (in regard to resting on faith), would be the axiom of choice. Having to deal with set theory....

So...
[0 ... ∞) - a number from 0 to infinity, including 0
vs
(0 ... ∞) - the number closest to 0, but not 0 itself to infinity

Thus one must have faith that the mathematician can actually produce the smallest number possible to 0, without being actually able to compute it. Therefore, we need faith in the number. This is considered to be true, and false at the same time....

Other than that... can you explain mathematically how that statement makes any sense?

 

[cekim]

Math rests on truth (and provability - enter Godel). Not faith. Hence the distinction between Science and well... everything else.

Sigh... NTSA...

I am a math guy. Don't like organized religion - but you must take some base assumptions "on faith." There is no purity of science. Anyone who claims otherwise is trying to sell you something - like "reasonable restrictions" on the right of self defense against criminal and tyrant alike.

If nothing else, you have to assume that the laws of physics we observe on this tiny corner of the universe apply elsewhere with little (that doesn't rest on that assumption) in the way directly observable evidence (again without that assumption) to prove this foundational "fact" of our physics and mathematics.

It doesn't matter though - political "science" is like "economics" it is an exercise in trying to apply "scientific method" to human behavior. It is sloppy and fails faster when you presume too much of your ability to use the principles of science to prove absolutely that some human behavior will occur.

Humans are a lot like semiconductors - you can show probabilities, but the observer effect is too powerful to directly measure the system.

 

[namedpipes]

Per St. Augustine or St Thomas?

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

 

[Baikal49]

How many angels can dance on the head of a pin?

An infinite number. They're angels for God's sake.

 

[namedpipes]

An infinite number. They're angels for God's sake.

And it sails right over his head...

 

[cekim]

An infinite number. They're angels for God's sake.

Wrong, the last time this debate was had, hell was created over the argument for space.

 

[Baikal49]

His logic is from various schools. He was a middle and high school teacher as well. PM me for details.

At least he changed his signature on the forum, the last one was an eyesore.



Uh huh. I hope the evil forces of the world aren't renting satellites to track you down. I typed a few of your statements into Google and you aren't exactly living underground.

This thread started off well, but got derailed something fierce.

Good luck with the BG380, I hear it has a very long trigger to get used to. Let's try to be happy and enjoy our rights for carry, regardless of what looms ahead.

Yeah, not living underground like our friend in RED. The satellites aren't a problem if you're ready with your aluminium foil deflector beenie.
http://zapatopi.net/afdb/

It does have a long trigger pull that takes about 150 rounds to get comfortable with. That's the only negative to the BG 380, IMO, and it's a minor one.
Agree. Don't worry. Be happy---and carry.

 

[Baikal49]

Some food for thought:

1) If we dwell in a finite world created by an infinite God, is not a Godelian theorem exactly what we should expect to find?

2) Why was it that Christian theology and Christian thinkers impelled the major modern developments in infinity theory?

3) Since mathematical theory ultimately rests on faith, why do you denounce Christianity for resting on faith? (Considering the US was founded on the Christian faith.)

4) The history of science shows that strictly mechanistic views of the world have consistently failed to hold up: Why not acknowledge that the world is not strictly mechanistic as materialistic explanations must suppose?

5) In light of Godel's proofs and Christ's transfinite claims, won't you yield yourself to God?


To dissolve the fact that everyone is born with certain rights is to allow people to become a number in horrific mathematical plot to take control people's lives.

Just want to make two things clear. I do not denounce Christianity or any other religion for being based on faith. What is dangerous are the extremists of any faith. As for the Constitution, it is based on 18th Century social contract theory, primarily on the writings Locke, made possible by the revival of Aristotelian thought through the writings of St. Thomas. The Founding Fathers were brilliant, thoughtful well read men who crafted a government totally unique in their time.

 

[Baikal49]

Wrong, the last time this debate was had, hell was created over the argument for space.

LOL! So that's what it was all about. Why don't they teach this in the divinity schools??

 

[cekim]

LOL! So that's what it was all about. Why don't they teach this in the divinity schools??

Progressive agenda.

 

[Baikal49]

Progressive agenda.

I see said the blind man to the deaf mute as the disabled person fell down the stairs.

 

[CosmicIrony]

If these PMs actually exist, please post them for all to see. Name names too.

I sent one of them. I do not think Baikal49 is a troll, he's trying to present a different point of view, getting flamed for it, and being willing to flame back. He's more confrontational than I am, but on the whole I agree with a lot of what he says.

 

[CosmicIrony]

Math rests on truth (and provability - enter Godel). Not faith. Hence the distinction between Science and well... everything else.

The only mathematical theory that I am aware of that is considered valid (in regard to resting on faith), would be the axiom of choice. Having to deal with set theory....

I have to say I never expected to see the axiom of choice on NES

this is the most erudite collection of gun nuts in the world!

 

[bullseye]

This thread keeps going the way it is and one of the mods is going to regulate it. I truly believe someone has some great pics of Scalia as well as Roberts, maybe both together, who knows, but strange shit is happening.

 

[lagrangian]

Is your argument that The Constitution is a living document? I am not sure you fully understand the meaning of "shall not be infringed" means...

The First Amendment says "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".

Are you really going to claim that means Congress and the states are therefore prohibited from making fraud a crime, or allowing people who are slandered to sue for redress? Are you going to claim the Founders (some of whom, by the way, supported the Alien & Sedition Acts only a few years later) thought that?

Clearly "make no law" is not absolute. So why should "shall not infringe" be considered an absolute statement?

I suppose one could argue that "make no law" is absolute, but that fraud or slander isn't "speech". Of course, you can play that same game with the Second Amendment -- "shall not infringe" means exactly what it says, but what does "the right of the people..." mean?

I imagine that's actually where Scalia is coming from on this. As an originalist textualist he probably does interpret "shall not infringe" quite literally. The question then is what exactly is the right being protected and in his judicial approach that means looking at the practice of the day. If that indicates that in 1789 it was believed people had a right to bear handguns and long guns but not, say, cannons, that's how he's going to construe the right.

 

[cekim]

The First Amendment says "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".

Due process provides a means of finding (after presumption of innocence has been overcome by judicial review of various sorts), of abridging even fundamental rights of the individual for commission of a crime.

So, there is and need be no law abridging freedom of expression for there to be allowance for the crime of fraud of slander of a private party or incite to riot or panic ("fire" in a movie theater).

The key - a very important key is that the rights of the INDIVIDUAL are abridged AFTER DUE PROCESS. There is no power granted government to abridge a class of people's rights without due process and presumption of innocence.

I imagine that's actually where Scalia is coming from on this. As an originalist textualist he probably does interpret "shall not infringe" quite literally. The question then is what exactly is the right being protected and in his judicial approach that means looking at the practice of the day. If that indicates that in 1789 it was believed people had a right to bear handguns and long guns but not, say, cannons, that's how he's going to construe the right.

Funny you should mention cannon as often considered a terrible weapon of its day - particularly against infantry with grape shot.

Cannon were and remain legal to own to this day. At no point was the private ownership (keeping and bearing) of tools of war from cannon to warship ruled out.

Scalia's argument is illogical given a textualist view - it is tenuous at best given an originalist view.

 

[jefftk]

I truly believe someone has some great pics of Scalia as well as Roberts, maybe both together, who knows, but strange shit is happening.

I found what Scalia said in the interview about the 4th Amendment and wiretapping far more concerning than what he said about the 2nd Amendment.

 

[soloman02]

The First Amendment says "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".

Are you really going to claim that means Congress and the states are therefore prohibited from making fraud a crime, or allowing people who are slandered to sue for redress? Are you going to claim the Founders (some of whom, by the way, supported the Alien & Sedition Acts only a few years later) thought that?

Clearly "make no law" is not absolute. So why should "shall not infringe" be considered an absolute statement?

I suppose one could argue that "make no law" is absolute, but that fraud or slander isn't "speech". Of course, you can play that same game with the Second Amendment -- "shall not infringe" means exactly what it says, but what does "the right of the people..." mean?

I imagine that's actually where Scalia is coming from on this. As an originalist textualist he probably does interpret "shall not infringe" quite literally. The question then is what exactly is the right being protected and in his judicial approach that means looking at the practice of the day. If that indicates that in 1789 it was believed people had a right to bear handguns and long guns but not, say, cannons, that's how he's going to construe the right.

You, Baikal49, and others have yet to provide evidence that the founders actually supported restrictions.

 

[OfficerObie59]

The First Amendment says "make no law...abridging the freedom of speech".

Are you really going to claim that means Congress and the states are therefore prohibited from making fraud a crime, or allowing people who are slandered to sue for redress? Are you going to claim the Founders (some of whom, by the way, supported the Alien & Sedition Acts only a few years later) thought that?

Clearly "make no law" is not absolute. So why should "shall not infringe" be considered an absolute statement?

I don't know that it's so clear, and I don't know the Alien and Sedition Acts would be the example I would use here. There was far from a universal majority at the time who were confident of it's constitutionality, so much so it resulted in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves. Moreover, it has been lambasted in even modern court decisions as the quintessential Congressional act constituting a First Amendment violation.

 

[cekim]

I don't know that it's so clear, and I don't know the Alien and Sedition Acts would be the example I would use here. There was far from a universal majority at the time who were confident of it's constitutionality, so much so it resulted in the Kentucky and Virginia Resolves. Moreover, it has been lambasted in even modern court decisions as the quintessential Congressional act constituting a First Amendment violation.

Yeah, two stinker examples, one of "terrible" military hardware that was and is legal to own and the other be law cited as the example for abuse of government power and the precise reason 1A was required.