Mass Shooting Las Vegas...

[Sparko]

The founders are GODS! We must follow all of their beliefs and make them law!

It is law, dumbass.

[Sparko]

I guess the Founding Fathers assumed that we were intelligent enough to use common sense. They can't spell everything out in detail for you. For instance, what does "the peoples" stand for in "the peoples" right to bear arms, mean? Does it mean 4 year olds can keep and bear arms? Of course not.

you crack me up with your rationalizing and moving goal posts.

[One Bad Pig]

Thats right they had no idea about the media of the future either and so weren't concerned with that when it came to free speech any more so than they were with that of future weaponry. So what? If it turned out that there was some urgent need to curtail the modern media then that could be done as well, but prima facie there is no good reason to curtail speech as there is with modern weaponry. The point is they had muskets, and thats all they had in mind at the time, If at the time it were tanks, bazookas, machine guns, or ground to air missiles, then anyone with half a brain could figure out that the right to own them would definitely have been infringed upon. The Founding Fathers weren't idiots you know! SCOTUS apparently agrees with me, so there's that.

So the issue, in your opinion, is not that those things should be banned because they're not mentioned, like you just argued, but because they're more powerful. Now, the other prong of your attack is that the 2nd Amendment only relates to a militia for common defense. These days, invaders aren't armed with muskets, but with tanks, bazookas, machine guns, aircraft, etc. In order to provide for defense against invaders today, a militia would need to be personally armed (just like they owned their own muskets back in the day) with tanks, bazookas, machine guns, ground to air missiles....

Those are mutually contradictory positions, Jim. Pick one.

The problem with you knuckleheads is that you think the Constitution is writ in stone, that the Founding Fathers were Gods or something and could see into the future. The Constitution is a guide, not a Bible!

We don't, actually, but don't let facts get in your way.

[Sea of red]

It is law, dumbass.

Aww, don't be that way.

[JimL]

So the issue, in your opinion, is not that those things should be banned because they're not mentioned, like you just argued, but because they're more powerful.

No, my argument is that those weapons can be banned because the non-infringment clause didn't pertain to those weapons, it pertained basically to muskets, at the time the Founding Fathers wrote the 2nd amendment. Apparently SCOTUS agrees with me, which is why we regulate weapons and the ownership thereof today.

Now, the other prong of your attack is that the 2nd Amendment only relates to a militia for common defense. These days, invaders aren't armed with muskets, but with tanks, bazookas, machine guns, aircraft, etc. In order to provide for defense against invaders today, a militia would need to be personally armed (just like they owned their own muskets back in the day) with tanks, bazookas, machine guns, ground to air missiles....

Those are mutually contradictory positions, Jim. Pick one.

These days, we don't depend upon militias to defend the country. And I didn't say that it only related to the militia, it was already the norm for people to be free to keep and bear arms. It was the need of a militia that the Founders reasoned that their right to continue to bear arms could not be infringed. Like I said, consider and understand the Founders thoughts, as they were focused on the state of affairs at the time in which they lived.

And again, remember, the 2nd amendment only protected the rights of the people from the Federal Government, the States could do whatever they wanted, including banning guns had they so desired.

We don't, actually, but don't let facts get in your way.

Well, not all of you do, but a lot of you do, at least they speak as if they do.

[TheWall]

Oh my mistake then. As far as duress goes.

This gun does shoot itself. Be very afraid.

Cardbord box intensifies.

[TheWall]

I dont get why the duress thing copied.

[TheWall]

Oh my mistake then. As far as duress goes.

Not true, actually. Rifles were around, then, and those were more advanced. Rifles were a lot more expensive to produce, however, so infantrymen were typically armed with muskets until well into the 19th century anyway.

Giodorni Air Rifle for instance.

[Cerebrum123]

I dont get why the duress thing copied.

Looks like you used the multiquote option, and it's still tagged as a post you want to quote.

[TheWall]

Looks like you used the multiquote option, and it's still tagged as a post you want to quote.

Oh. How do I undo that?

[rogue06]

Actually, yes, in certain circumstances. A kid, not your own, who manages to take your car because you left it running, has committed theft and you are very much liable. Attractive nuisance.

And yes, there are some laws on the books - I was asked how I would improve the law and gave my answer. Greater liability usually results in greater care.

So you're telling me that if you stop at a convenience store and run in to grab a drink or whatever but leave your car running because, for instance, you want the AC or heater to keep running because of the weather, and some kid steals your car and uses it to commit another crime you would be held responsible? Really? Can you cite an actual law or legal precedent for that?

You see I'm old enough to remember when people in many areas didn't lock their doors at night or left their car keys in the car (generally in the ash tray or on top of the sun viser). If some kid stole the car and went out "joy riding" and got into an accident because he ran a stop sign or whatever nobody ever went back to the car's owner and charged him with a crime. They might have told him it wasn't a smart thing to leave your keys in the car but the owner wasn't charged with a crime.

[rogue06]

So? It's my favorite word!

You told me it was discombobulate.

[Joel]

Actually, that's not an ad hominem argument - so the fallacy isn't at issue. And since you are insisting on ridiculous comparisons of weapons to non-weapons, and deliberately misconstruing what I have said I am not seeing where you have much credibility here.

If I'm misconstruing what you are saying, it wasn't intentional. Sorry for going a little overboard with my sarcastic reply to Sparko. I usually try not to get carried away like that. I do agree that there is an issue of liability/negligence regarding being responsible with things that are a risk to others. I'm just questioning where the line should be. It was my understanding that you were saying that a locked home is insufficient to protect a person from liability from what a burglar might do with a gun--that it must also be locked in a safe. If I misunderstood you on that, I withdraw all the questions/comments that I posted in response. If that is what you are saying, then it would seem that the same principle of being liable for criminal use of your stolen possessions should apply to any thing. I don't see why it would be restricted to weapons and violence. Why wouldn't it similarly apply to make you liable for the damages caused by arson using gasoline that had been stolen from you? I could see the application of the principle perhaps varying by degree, maybe based on the degree of riskiness.

[Guns] cannot be purchased legally without permit. It undermines the permit laws (which is his wish) to allow gun owners a free pass on negligent possession.

I think only certain states require a purchase (or ownership) permit and sometimes only for certain kinds of guns. I don't think even California requires an ownership permit.

I don't want owners to have a free pass on negligent possession. They should be liable. I'm only questioning exactly where the line(s) defining negligence lies. In a locked home is inside a locked enclosure. It seems we are just arguing over how secure of a locked enclosure it needs to be in. You draw the line in one place. Someone else could come along and one-up you, requiring a more-secure safe or other added security.

[Joel]

But there are considerations to take into account when interpreting the Constitution such as the state of affairs at the time when it was written. The Founders had no idea concerning the weaponry of the future, so, that the peoples right to bear muskets "shall not be infringed" still holds holds today. You could amend the Constitution in order to correct for the imprecise language due the Founders ignorance, but the courts I believe found that unnecessary

I think that bolded part is a big problem.
And I don't think it's a matter of imprecision here. "shall not be infringed", "no law", "shall not exist" is pretty strong language. If people later wanted to add exceptions, due to factors that hadn't been forseen, that's why the amendment process is there.

[Joel]

Joel, that is not a circular argument. Even if it were, it's not invalid so this is pointless.

The Court is the final arbiter. Has been since Marbury v Madison. Arguments can be made that the Court erred - but disregarding all the case law makes for an extremely poor argument for error.

If the question was whether the Catholic Church's pronouncements are reliable, would it be a reasonable argument to say the Catholic Church has declared itself to be infallible?

It is perhaps a different question whether the Court is the final arbiter on constitutionality. Wouldn't you agree that the Court has erred before? They aren't infallible, right?

My argument is not that all case law is in error. My argument is only against the appeal-to-authority argument of the form "X is true because the Court said X." If the Court is not infallible, then the argument is not strictly valid. But we might mean, "X is probably true, because the Court said X and the Court is usually correct." In which case I argued that the court, even early on, was incorrect about some really crucial matters, which casts doubt on their credibility, which casts doubt on the conclusion that "X is probably true".