Register | Sign In


Understanding through Discussion


EvC Forum active members: 65 (9162 total)
2 online now:
Newest Member: popoi
Post Volume: Total: 915,817 Year: 3,074/9,624 Month: 919/1,588 Week: 102/223 Day: 0/13 Hour: 0/0


EvC Forum Side Orders Coffee House Gun Control

Summations Only

Thread  Details

Email This Thread
Newer Topic | Older Topic
  
Author Topic:   Gun Control
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(2)
Message 80 of 310 (669041)
07-26-2012 2:45 PM
Reply to: Message 60 by Briterican
07-26-2012 12:01 PM


Re: Inclusive
I hope if you read any part of this post, it will be this part, where I apologise for accusations of a "pro-violence" attitude towards any of you. It's a passionate topic, but that was out of line. Clearly none of you approves of what happened in Colorado.
Of course not. But I think you've apologized a bit too much.
My experience is that gun advocates and gun control advocates as a group don't listen too each other very well, which results in each side coming of as entirely condescending and unreasonable to the other side. And their are nuts on each side.
Yes it is true that the US constitution strongly protects gun ownership, but it is also the case that none of the rights in the constitution are absolute, and under a strict scrutiny review, guns can be controlled at some level given a "compelling" state purpose. It is certainly the case that some of the controls I'd favor, namely the DC laws that were overturned, are clearly beyond the pale, but I doubt that NYs relatively tough laws are going down. Sometimes, gun advocates, in celebrating DC v Heller and McDonald v. Chicago.
It is also the case that prior to DC v. Heller, the SC had not previously recognized a strong personal right that is currently the result of a 5-4 decision. While I don't believe that the SC would be likely to overturn that decision any time soon, regardless of how the make up changes, the make up of the court will make a huge difference in what constitutes a "compelling case" and what types of controls are allowable.
As a last point, I think that people in and outside of the US who find the armed rebellion motivation for the second amendment alarming aren't just softies who don't understand America. We've already had an armed rebellion against the US that began chiefly because one side did not like the outcome of the election in 1860.
Yesterday I listened to an advocate from GRNC which calls itself "North Carolina's Only 'No Compromise' Gun Rights Organization" explain that the real tragedy in Aurora Colorado was that the movie theatre was a gun free zone so that nobody in the smoke and dark could return fire. There is a group of people to whom that reasoning make sense, and a separate group of people who are utterly appalled. There is no shame in being in the latter group.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 60 by Briterican, posted 07-26-2012 12:01 PM Briterican has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 07-26-2012 3:01 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 117 of 310 (669134)
07-27-2012 9:33 AM
Reply to: Message 82 by ringo
07-26-2012 3:01 PM


Re: Inclusive
As I understand it, political dissatisfaction became a CIvil War because of state-controlled militias seizing arms from Federal arsenals; it had little to do with privately owned weapons.
Did I ever say otherwise?
My point was that people might have reason for concern about the "armed overthrow of the government" justification for a right to bear arms.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 82 by ringo, posted 07-26-2012 3:01 PM ringo has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 07-27-2012 12:14 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 122 by crashfrog, posted 07-27-2012 12:25 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 121 of 310 (669144)
07-27-2012 12:19 PM
Reply to: Message 120 by ringo
07-27-2012 12:14 PM


Re: Inclusive
As far as I'm concerned, people do have an inherent right to overthrow their government, if necessary, as per Declaration of Independence. As I understand it, the Constitution simply codifies that inherent right into law.
I understand the view that the Declaration of Independence does describe such a right. But that right isn't included anywhere in the Constitution.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 120 by ringo, posted 07-27-2012 12:14 PM ringo has seen this message but not replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-27-2012 12:27 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 137 of 310 (669211)
07-28-2012 5:02 AM
Reply to: Message 123 by jar
07-27-2012 12:27 PM


Re: Inclusive
But the Constitution does say that all rights not specifically granted to the Federal government are reserved to the States and people.
Really? So you'd expect to be able to defend yourself after an attempt to overthrow the federal government by citing your rights under the ninth amendment?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 123 by jar, posted 07-27-2012 12:27 PM jar has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 138 by jar, posted 07-28-2012 9:19 AM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 264 of 310 (669632)
07-31-2012 8:42 PM
Reply to: Message 263 by Jon
07-31-2012 8:01 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Whatever would be necessary to defend against an armed government.
Then you've never lived in any thing like a democracy. At best, you and your circle of friends have the ability to gather up enough firepower to hold off the municipal establishment for a while. Then help gets called in. Not even Justice Scalia would interpret the constitution in a way that allows citizens the bazookas, tanks and body armor that would allow opposing the a state government let alone the feds.
You live in a representative democracy because you and your buddies control the legislature and the executive branch via the ballot box. And in the US, at least since the 1900s or so, when government officials get voted out, they don't grab firearms and oppose the citizens; they just pack their @#$% and leave office.
In fact, we can cite a number of instances in our history when people have taken up arms in order to oppose democratic processes (e.g. Wilmington insurrection of 1898). I don't see anything particularly democratic about that.
I wonder how it would have worked out if Vivien Malone had tried to shoot her way into the University of Alabama.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 263 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 8:01 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2012 8:54 PM NoNukes has replied
 Message 267 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 10:18 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 269 of 310 (669641)
07-31-2012 10:20 PM
Reply to: Message 266 by crashfrog
07-31-2012 8:54 PM


Re: Democracy 101
You make a valid point about vests. And you are right about federal law. But there are federal restrictions. For example export laws prevent selling body armor to at least some lawful immigrants within the US who would have enjoy most rights under the constitution. And some states do restrict the sale of body armor to face to face transactions. It is difficult to see how such laws could fall afoul of the 2nd amendment regardless unless we somehow get 9 CreationistJons on the SCt.
I still think the position that you cannot have democracy if you cannot forcibly overthrow or resist the government is silly. Perhaps I did go a bit overboard in expressing that.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 266 by crashfrog, posted 07-31-2012 8:54 PM crashfrog has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(3)
Message 270 of 310 (669642)
07-31-2012 10:37 PM
Reply to: Message 267 by Jon
07-31-2012 10:18 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Instances like the Wilmington Insurrection aren't oppositions to democratic processes; they are examples of democratic processes.
*boogle*
I don't imagine there's much point in discussing this with you. The Wilmington Insurrection was a massacre triggered by a perceived insult to white women during which people were killed for racist reasons, the only black owned newspaper was burned, and the lawfully elected government was removed.
If democracy includes allowing a bunch of racists to overthrow the lawfully elected government despite being a minority in Wilmington, then perhaps we needn't consider democracy something to aspire to.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 267 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 10:18 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 271 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 10:45 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 272 of 310 (669645)
07-31-2012 11:18 PM
Reply to: Message 271 by Jon
07-31-2012 10:45 PM


Wha??
But they weren't allowed to do anything. Unless, of course, are they still in power?
Does your question make any sense? Is your comment even rational?
The Wilmington Massacre resulted in a successful overthrow of the local government by a minority faction for reasons anyone ought to find repulsive. Neither the state nor the federal government intervened. No punishment or justice of any kind was ever meted out to the murderers. There's a @#$% park in Wilmington named after one of the perps to this day.
Of course all the perps are now dead what with the massacre being finished 100 years ago.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 271 by Jon, posted 07-31-2012 10:45 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 9:59 AM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 274 of 310 (669659)
08-01-2012 10:21 AM
Reply to: Message 273 by Jon
08-01-2012 9:59 AM


Re: Wha??
Why, if they were a minority, were they not overthrown by the majority that supposedly didn't agree with their point of view?
Are you serious?
You initially asserted that the insurrection was a democratic in action. Now you are asking questions that demonstrate that you knew absolutely nothing about the Wilmington Insurrection/Massacre. I can come up with a few explanations for why you could sport off like this. Perhaps you consider all insurrections against the government to be democratic actions. More likely though, its simply that your position that you must have guns just like the feds in order to live in a democracy is unsupportable.
Following the massacre and the running out of town of black businessmen and the Republican (black and white polititicans), the minority installed their own government the same afternoon.
While blacks were a majority in the town of Wilmington, they were a decided minority in the state of North Carolina. In theory that should not have prevented them from exerting power locally, but that isn't how things worked back in 1898.
Many of the black politicians and business men were unable to return with their rifles because they were dead. But given the disenfranchisement of blacks that occured shortly afterwards by state adoption of Jim Crow laws, the effort would have been futile anyway.
It's no disgrace not to know anything about the Wilmington incident. I only learned about it in law school. The topic isn't included in history books even in North Carolina. But what is pretty hard to understand are your unfounded assertions. You could at least have looked up the topic on Wikipedia.
But why don't you pontificate on the outcome of the majority Wilmington citizens getting their guns and defending themselves against the minority supremacists.
ABE:
NoNukes writes:
Neither the state nor the federal government intervened.
Why?
You cannot possibly be this obtuse. At this point you ought to have a few ideas why the state did not intervene, and anyone familiar with Civil War and Reconstruction history could make some good guesses at why the federal government stayed out of it.
Edited by NoNukes, : No reason given.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 273 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 9:59 AM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 279 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 12:49 PM NoNukes has replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 277 of 310 (669672)
08-01-2012 12:21 PM
Reply to: Message 275 by Artemis Entreri
08-01-2012 11:50 AM


Re: summation..why? this thread is great.
I find it extremely interesting that liberals fully support certain states to regulate firearms (something in the constitution), but deny those same states to regulate marriage (something that is not in the constitution), or science education, or displays of religion; I find the double standard very interesting, and quite illogical.
Is it illogical? Truly inexplicable without assuming a double standard?
What if people value certain rights for reasons other than the fact that they are enumerated in the constitution? Maybe some types of regulations (such as who to marry or what claptrap gets taught to their kids as science) are more personal to a given person then whether or not their neighbor gets to wear his gun in a movie theatre. Maybe historically, the state government has abused certain powers and not others. After all, none of the rights enumerated in the Bill of Rights are applied without limitation, and a few of them don't even apply to the states at all.
People who disagree with your aren't always mentally deficient or illogical. They may simply have different values than you do. Some of them may be considering facts that you don't find important.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 275 by Artemis Entreri, posted 08-01-2012 11:50 AM Artemis Entreri has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 281 of 310 (669678)
08-01-2012 1:05 PM
Reply to: Message 279 by Jon
08-01-2012 12:49 PM


Re: Wha??
So they weren't actually as much in the minority as you make them out to be, eh?
I said the supremacists, and whites in general, were in the minority in Wilmington, which is the government that they overthrew. Did I make them out to be anything else?
Stop trying to defend the indefensible, Jon.
Where is your evidence that the people represented a minority point of view?
How about the fact that their faction had lost both the 1894 and 1898 local elections in Wilmington despite the employing intimidation tactics to discourage black voters?

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 279 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 12:49 PM Jon has replied

Replies to this message:
 Message 283 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 1:19 PM NoNukes has not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


(1)
Message 282 of 310 (669679)
08-01-2012 1:09 PM
Reply to: Message 280 by Jon
08-01-2012 12:56 PM


Re: Democracy 101
Please learn to read. I never stated that I support a 'superpower strength US military'.
Acting condescending looks better when you are right about something. Straggler addressed some other alternatives, like downgrading the US military in his message. He also said "Joe the Plumber and his buddies" and not just a single individual.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

This message is a reply to:
 Message 280 by Jon, posted 08-01-2012 12:56 PM Jon has seen this message but not replied

  
NoNukes
Inactive Member


Message 306 of 310 (669759)
08-02-2012 12:16 PM


I'd like to see this same debate occur in a situatioon where the evidence supported argument requirement was as strict as that used in the science forum, but I don't think EvC forum is a place for that discussion.
In particular, I see lots of assertions about why we have a second amendment, but not one of them, by people on either side of the debate, is historically correct. Unfortunately, that's quite typical of gun control/freedom debates.

Under a government which imprisons any unjustly, the true place for a just man is also in prison. Thoreau: Civil Disobedience (1846)
The apathy of the people is enough to make every statue leap from its pedestal and hasten the resurrection of the dead. William Lloyd Garrison

  
Newer Topic | Older Topic
Jump to:


Copyright 2001-2023 by EvC Forum, All Rights Reserved

™ Version 4.2
Innovative software from Qwixotic © 2024