In an earlier article about the 2nd amendment I proved beyond a shadow of any doubt that the 2nd amendment has nothing to do with an individual right to own a gun. And the facts are irrefutable.
Irrefutable!!! Well, minus the part where it's been unanimously determined by the Supreme Court. And countless other documents, articles, studies, etc. Oh, and reality.
Advertisement
Incoming Fire
Random Nuclear Strikes » Orly?
on 8/24/2009 10:36 AM
Comments
mike w.
says:
Wow, there's just so much misinformation in his article that I don't know where to start.
It's like these folks are allergic to facts.
It's like these folks are allergic to facts.
Boyd
says:
I read (well, skimmed) his linked article where he provided that irrefutable proof that the Second Amendment doesn't protect and individual right to own a gun. His reasoning? The Amendment is a single sentence, and according to him, the subject of that sentence, grammatically speaking, is "militia."
So, he's not too hot with English grammar, either.
So, he's not too hot with English grammar, either.
Matthew
says:
Is he, perhaps, a member of the Vizzini family? Because I "do not think that word means what you think it means."
Sir Limerick
says:
His total credibility approaches zero at this sentence in his "irrefutable" proof that the Second Amendment is a state's right:
'As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:"'
That's why the rights to peaceably assemble, petition for redress, and be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures are states' rights too, I guess...
'As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:"'
That's why the rights to peaceably assemble, petition for redress, and be secure from unreasonable searches and seizures are states' rights too, I guess...
Like Larry Elder (Conservative radio host in Los Angeles) says: "Facts to a liberal are like kryptonite to Superman!"
The problems is, by linking to his post on examiner, you are also providing said retard with page views. (the examiner writes get paid based on page views)
TexasFred
says:
The ONLY thing I see here that is irrefutable is the fact that the guy is a dumbass...
Ditto what TexasFred said!
Liberals cannot be confused with facts it screws up everything for them.
Liberals cannot be confused with facts it screws up everything for them.
Linoge
says:
Crap on a crutch. I find it amazing that someone would expend that much time, effort, and typing to prove to the world, beyond a shadow of a doubt, that they are a bleeding moron. His argument immediately fails simply due to the Constitution's use of "the people" in other Amendments that are obviously not referring to collective rights.
Of course, he could think they do as well, and given the depth of his idiocy, it would not surprise me.
Of course, he could think they do as well, and given the depth of his idiocy, it would not surprise me.
You should have warned us that that was a really wordy article that most of us had no desire to read.
It seems like everyone is a Constitutional scholar when it comes down to the Second Amendment. (It's really a shame that they don't know the First that well, but I digress...)
It seems like everyone is a Constitutional scholar when it comes down to the Second Amendment. (It's really a shame that they don't know the First that well, but I digress...)
Linoge
says:
And what, dare I ask, is proving our ignorance of the First Amendment? It is not like we are trying to strip anyone's rights from them... like... say, you are, UBU52.
mike w.
says:
I love how he says,
"As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:"
Apparently he's never read the Bill of Rights, since the 10th Amendment says,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th quite clearly differentiates between "the people" and "the States"
"As any Constitutional scholar will tell you, when the Framers were referring to a state's right they used the term "the people:"
Apparently he's never read the Bill of Rights, since the 10th Amendment says,
The powers not delegated to the United States by the Constitution, nor prohibited by it to the States, are reserved to the States respectively, or to the people.
The 10th quite clearly differentiates between "the people" and "the States"
Linoge: Why do libel and slander laws even exist if no one is trying to strip anyone of their First Amendment rights?
Doesn't the First Amendment mean that anyone can say anything anytime they want to? If Free Speech has limitations, why should't the right to bear arms?
Doesn't the First Amendment mean that anyone can say anything anytime they want to? If Free Speech has limitations, why should't the right to bear arms?
Sir Limerick
says:
UBU52, the First Amendment says that the government may not restrict a person's right to say anything at any time. Libel and slander laws exist because your right to speak what you want ends where my right not to be affected by injurious speech begins.
The right to free speech is not the thing limited by libel and slander laws--there is no right to be insulated from the consequences of harmful exercise of free speech.
By that reasoning, the Second Amendment would be an absolute defense against homicide by firearm--"I was just exercising my Second Amendment protected right" will not let you beat a murder rap.
(And as an aside, the Supreme Court generally rules that reasonable regulation of the time, place, and manner of the First Amendment is allowed. So the basic argument "the Second Amendment isn't a right because machine guns/tanks/F-22 Raptors aren't permitted" is faulty.)
The right to free speech is not the thing limited by libel and slander laws--there is no right to be insulated from the consequences of harmful exercise of free speech.
By that reasoning, the Second Amendment would be an absolute defense against homicide by firearm--"I was just exercising my Second Amendment protected right" will not let you beat a murder rap.
(And as an aside, the Supreme Court generally rules that reasonable regulation of the time, place, and manner of the First Amendment is allowed. So the basic argument "the Second Amendment isn't a right because machine guns/tanks/F-22 Raptors aren't permitted" is faulty.)
mike w.
says:
Laws against libel and slander punish the MISUSE of free speech, specifically because such speech directly harms another person.
We already have the same kind of restrictions on 2A rights. My right to keep & bear arms doesn't mean I'm free to MISUSE that right to commit armed robbery, burglary, or assault.
Libel & Slander laws are nothing like laws regulating firearms. They punish misuse after the exercize of the right. Even shouting fire in a public theater. You aren't prevented from doing so before entering the theater, nor are you gagged. In fact, if there IS a fire you actually can shout fire and it is protected speech.
We have plenty of laws that punish the MISUSE of firearms, not to mention laws against violent crimes like rape, robbery, burglary and assault.
Many (most) gun control laws on the other hand impose prior restraints on the exercize of my rights.
If we were to apply the rationale used for gun control to free speech we would require that people be muzzled (or their tongues cut out) because they might misuse their rights. That's an a priori restraint, and it punishes everyone under the presumption that they will misuse their rights. That is exactly what gun control laws do to us.
We already have the same kind of restrictions on 2A rights. My right to keep & bear arms doesn't mean I'm free to MISUSE that right to commit armed robbery, burglary, or assault.
Libel & Slander laws are nothing like laws regulating firearms. They punish misuse after the exercize of the right. Even shouting fire in a public theater. You aren't prevented from doing so before entering the theater, nor are you gagged. In fact, if there IS a fire you actually can shout fire and it is protected speech.
We have plenty of laws that punish the MISUSE of firearms, not to mention laws against violent crimes like rape, robbery, burglary and assault.
Many (most) gun control laws on the other hand impose prior restraints on the exercize of my rights.
If we were to apply the rationale used for gun control to free speech we would require that people be muzzled (or their tongues cut out) because they might misuse their rights. That's an a priori restraint, and it punishes everyone under the presumption that they will misuse their rights. That is exactly what gun control laws do to us.
Kevin Baker
says:
I invited Mr. Rubin to debate the topic.
"Irrefutable." I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
"Irrefutable." I don't think that word means what he thinks it means.
Linoge
says:
Well, it would appear as though Mike W and Sir Limerick beat me to the right answer, though I will still chime in.
UBU52 - libel and slander laws do not exist to strip anyone of their First Amendment rights. Period. They are simply an extension of this concept: your rights extend only so far as they do not infringe upon mine. Slander and libel cause appreciable, quantifiable damage, and damaging another person is not justifiable by any rights.
Likewise, shooting, murdering, or assaulting another person with a firearm is not justifiable under the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
If that is all the "gun control" you honestly want, I think we can come to a peaceable agreement... but something tells me to doubt it.
UBU52 - libel and slander laws do not exist to strip anyone of their First Amendment rights. Period. They are simply an extension of this concept: your rights extend only so far as they do not infringe upon mine. Slander and libel cause appreciable, quantifiable damage, and damaging another person is not justifiable by any rights.
Likewise, shooting, murdering, or assaulting another person with a firearm is not justifiable under the rights protected by the Second Amendment.
If that is all the "gun control" you honestly want, I think we can come to a peaceable agreement... but something tells me to doubt it.
Okay. Now does anyone want to explain why Federal copyright law isn't a violation of the First Amendment?
Regarding the idea of rights extending as long as they do not infringe upon other people's rights -- I totally agree!
I have no problem with guns because they never infringe! It's the bullets that infringe so I think bullets in cities should be controlled. Why should I, a resident of a highrise multi-story building, be subjected to the dangers that should only be allowed in open spaces? Everyone says "your rights only extend so far as they do not infringe upon mine." The right to live in peace is a basic American right.
The other option to controlling bullets would be to require gun/bullet owners to encase their housing units in 1/2" to 1" steel. I would be happy with that. Line the walls, ceilings and floors with 1" steel plates and you can keep the bullets. (And think of the jobs this would provide!)
Regarding the idea of rights extending as long as they do not infringe upon other people's rights -- I totally agree!
I have no problem with guns because they never infringe! It's the bullets that infringe so I think bullets in cities should be controlled. Why should I, a resident of a highrise multi-story building, be subjected to the dangers that should only be allowed in open spaces? Everyone says "your rights only extend so far as they do not infringe upon mine." The right to live in peace is a basic American right.
The other option to controlling bullets would be to require gun/bullet owners to encase their housing units in 1/2" to 1" steel. I would be happy with that. Line the walls, ceilings and floors with 1" steel plates and you can keep the bullets. (And think of the jobs this would provide!)
Linoge
says:
Okay. Now does anyone want to explain why Federal copyright law isn't a violation of the First Amendment?
Because stealing someone else's work and selling it as your own is directly damaging to that someone else, and thus a violation of their individual rights?
Seriously, how thick are you?
The right to live...
Actually, your right ends right about there. However, apart from that logical disconnect, I, too, live in a "highrise multi-story building", and I can guarantee you that neither my firearms nor my ammunition have threatened anyone, nor have they disrupted anyone's lives, nor will they do so in the future. Why, then, should I be forced by a panty-wetter like you to install something I neither need, nor will need in the future? You are now injecting your own requirements into my life, and by forcing me to spend money on something I neither want nor need, you are directly infringing on my rights.
Funny how human rights continue to only matter to you, and damn anyone else's...
Because stealing someone else's work and selling it as your own is directly damaging to that someone else, and thus a violation of their individual rights?
Seriously, how thick are you?
The right to live...
Actually, your right ends right about there. However, apart from that logical disconnect, I, too, live in a "highrise multi-story building", and I can guarantee you that neither my firearms nor my ammunition have threatened anyone, nor have they disrupted anyone's lives, nor will they do so in the future. Why, then, should I be forced by a panty-wetter like you to install something I neither need, nor will need in the future? You are now injecting your own requirements into my life, and by forcing me to spend money on something I neither want nor need, you are directly infringing on my rights.
Funny how human rights continue to only matter to you, and damn anyone else's...
Sir Limerick
says:
Gun owners' residences are already encased in several things stronger than steel:
-The threat of civil and criminal liability from malicious or negligent use
-Healthy respect for the Four Rules of safety
-Instinct for self-preservation: if I'm behaving in a manner unsafe to you, it's also a manner unsafe to me
And, as Robb points out, the problem is statistically rare.
Safety through dipshittery doesn't work either, as risk acceptance by an individual increases as perceived safety increases.
Should urban police stations also be encased in steel? How about buildings with armed security? Celebrity apartments in Manhattan with bodyguards? Apartments of police officers if they're allowed to take their duty weapon home? Should these people be given windows?
-The threat of civil and criminal liability from malicious or negligent use
-Healthy respect for the Four Rules of safety
-Instinct for self-preservation: if I'm behaving in a manner unsafe to you, it's also a manner unsafe to me
And, as Robb points out, the problem is statistically rare.
Safety through dipshittery doesn't work either, as risk acceptance by an individual increases as perceived safety increases.
Should urban police stations also be encased in steel? How about buildings with armed security? Celebrity apartments in Manhattan with bodyguards? Apartments of police officers if they're allowed to take their duty weapon home? Should these people be given windows?
Comments have been closed on this topic.
HankH