Murder-Suicide at UCLA, Two Dead

Re-read this thread, you'll find the answer.
http://wordforge.net/index.php?threads/leftforge-doesnt-understand-the-second-amendment.107376/

Um, no, you failed there, so I'm not surprised you won't try to answer that question now.

Here's the relevant part.

It was covered at length in the Federalist Papers. The Founders rightly regarded standing armies as a threat to liberty, and argued that since the militias could defeat any federal army the citizens didn't have anything to worry about.

Um no I didn't. Just because you don't understand it, doesn't mean I failed. I thoroughly explained my position, you're just too stupid to figure it out.

That bit from Madison is relevant today, how? Oh yeah, it's not. And even regarding his era, it's filled with conditional statements and eliptical thinking. Just because a framer said something doesn't mean those particular thoughts are reflected in the final document. Hell, look no further than that idiot gturner's citation of the Federalist papers. Do you not recognize that the very existence of those papers means that their was disagreement even at the time the Constitution was created? As an "historian," you are guilty of cherry picking.

They use bomber planes and keep nukes ready.

Nope. You see, the Founding Fathers spilled buckets of ink writing about what we call "liberty". They also commanded militia forces against the British. They knew quite well what they were talking about, and wouldn't have countenanced having poor arms when going up against British regulars and Hessian soldiers. The Founders were the ones who would have, in such a case, been killed like dogs, along with their hopes of independence. Thus their promotion of new innovations in weapons and standardized production, such as the 1819 Hall breech loading rifle, which was adopted as general issue in 1819. The Hall's they gave to some of the militiamen who fought in key battles are worth a fortune today.

ETA; Here's one of the rifles awarded by Congress for valor in the defense of Plattsburgh. It's valued at $60,000 to $80,000 dollars.



The Army desperately wanted them in 1814 but Hall couldn't make them fast enough.

Well they aren't "toys" unless your views on child safety differ from mine. As for taking them, come on across the pond and give it a go! What's the worst that can happen?

As a historian, I use those documents as a guide in interpreting the Constitution, a document written by Madison and not Al Gore (inventor of the internet). I"ll take Madison's word over yours or Al Gore's (Inventor of the internet).

In fairness, Madison wasn't just any old Framer; he's regarded as the "Father of the Constitution."

In any event, writings by the Framers may illuminate some aspects of their intent, but the wording of the Second is, in my mind, very unambiguous. The Second connects preserving the right pf private ownership of firearms with resisting tyranny, therefore arms suitable for that purpose are necessarily protected.

What I fear most about a Hillary Clinton presidency is that gun control is one of only a few issues that she actually has strongly held beliefs in. And if she is elected I really worry that in the first 6 months or so (so called Presidential Honeymoon period) that some pretty extensive gun control legislation will end up passed with Clinton willing to make deals with congressional Republicans to "buy" support for gun contro initiatives.

I don't worry that the 2nd Amendment will ever be overturned entirely. But I do worry about huge areas being allowed to declare themselves "gun free zones" where gun possession outside your own property is a crime and that a person has to jump through huge hoops and take weeks or even months to acquire a firearm.

All I have is a shotgun. I don't expect to ever need a handgun.

But

IF I ever need a handgun I'm pretty sure I'm not going to have 3 months of paperwork and waiting periods to get one.

Yea, I don't know how many times we've been over this.

I call BULLSHIT! Not that you are a felon (I don't judge) but that you can go into a Florida Walmart or Academy Sports or any other store that sells guns and purchase a firearm if indeed you are a convicted felon. Granted, some states don't report criminal records for shit. That said, I would challenge you to go into any place that legally sells guns - tell them you are interested in a particular gun - have them run the background check and see if they turn you down. If they do not turn you down, tel them you changed your mind about the gun. I think you are assuming things that are just not so. A convicted felon getting a gun legally is just not as easy as most people assume that it is. That said let's say you do legally purchase a gun. Tererun with a gun doesn't bother me. Armed robbers with a long criminal record of violence with a gun bothers me - and by golly armed robbers with a long criminal record of violence don't buy their guns from a chain store. They steal them from chain stores, or buy them from other criminals. And you being white has ZERO to do with buying a gun. I call bullshit on that 24/7 and twice on Sunday. There is no...fucking...way that any legal gun dealing entity will be able to influence a federal background check with your ethnicity. Not going to happen, sell your bullshit somewhere else - like to people that don't buy guns or associate with people who buy guns. Will Cletus at the trailer park illegally sell a gun to a white and deny a sale to a black? Absolutely! But Cletus at the trailer park is not a licensed gun dealer.

As I've said many times, the American glorification of guns goes well beyond legal rights. It's a glorification that simply doesn't exist in other gun ownership countries. You guys just aren't willing to admit that for you guns are not just a tool or a defensive item, but an object of fetish.

And that's why we're the world's superpower. We worship the weapons that kick other people's asses.

Let me bring out the crayons for you. The spell checker on this tablet turned dumbshit into jumpsuit and they are in no way related.

Do you feel smarter having that explained to you? Sometimes you insult yourself.

Spoken by somebody that has never lived in a place that has high levels of gun violence (in their lifetime anyway) and doesn't comprehend how or why the average law abiding citizen (which you rarely hear about of course) should even have a right to defend themselves against those who partake in high levels of gun violence. It's quite amusing really, like watching a monkey trying to build a house of cards. They get frustrated, and you feel bad because you just don't have the ability to explain to them the basic concepts.

I get annoyed when I hear about America's supposed "glorification" of guns.

Aside from a few internet clowns, and be honest you can find anything on the internet, I see very little evidence for the "glorification of firearms. Two of my brothers in law each own more than 100 firearms each. I wouldn't say the "glorify" guns. If you go down the list they have perfectly legitimate uses for all of them.

Also you must take into account in the United States law enforcement authorities are not actually supposed to protect the citizens. Despite what they claim, law enforcement in the U.S. is almost entirely "reactive". That is they investigate crimes that have ALREADY HAPPENED. A general expectation is that the citizens themselves will be responsible for their own defense.

So what? Our history and culture are different from other countries. I'm sure we "glorify" lots of things people in other countries don't.

"We can have a discussion about this as soon as you admit your position is irrational."

You just can't help making a fool out of yourself, can you? How does Al Gore play in to this discussion? You're problem is that you can't make an argument about anything without trying to make it a political issue. It's one of the many reasons people mostly just laugh at you.

This is a much stronger argument than one that cites the writings of some subset of framers. It can stand on its own, without any need for determining whether Madison's statement represented a universal thought process.

No. I feel smarter when I disable the spellchecker and simply turn to my wife and say "How do you spell this?"

I try to resort to using the Framers' position only when someone uses the "that's not what they intended" argument.

Absent some ambiguity in the wording, the plain text meaning of the passage in the Constitution is what should prevail. Some interpretation is called for when considering the broader implications, but no interpretation that contravenes the plain meaning is legitimate IMHO.

You can also look at the early state constitutions that guaranteed the same right. Ours said "The right of the people to keep and bear arms, in defense of themselves and their state, shall not be questioned."

I mostly agree with that. I'm quite suspicious of arguments that rest instead on fetiishizing the framers, especially when they themselves often had heated disagreements about the meaning of the document. The best we can do is try to figure out as close as we can, what the language itself means. But there is a second requirement, in my opinion, which is that we consider how language and society change over time. These changes also change certain aspects of how we should understand the Constitution.

I don't really see the basic premise of the second any differently from you. Not because of Madison's words, but because it is indeed fairly unambiguous that people have a right to access some sort of personal arms in most circumstances. We are going to differ on particular questions concerning what is a protected arm, what is a sacrosanct form of bearing that arm, where does the right come in to conflict with others, etc. But that's a different discussion from what usually happens in these threads, and one for which I don't think Madison provides much insight.

There's nothing irrational about looking at it as an outsider from a culture that has no big political issue with guns. If anything it is the ability to look at it like that which affords a less emotional assessment of the issue.

You're just making my point for me. Why does one individual need 100 guns? Don't say it's for protection or any of that bullshit. You don't need 100 guns for protection. It's because of the fetish.

Hmmmmmmm, I wonder why we don't have high levels of gun violence?

Because you have knife violence instead?