Help Me Understand Gun Rights

[The Resister]

I think the above discussion is a great illustration of the differences between those who love liberty and those who love authority. I'm a fan of liberty myself.

I think that most people here, the lefty trolling the thread being the exception, would lean toward Liberty even if they didn't fully understand it.

 

[03A3Sporter]

The "liberal states" are the majority of Americans. But what is a non-liberal state?

Texas Politics - Public Opinion on Gun Control

You really are trolling ... that is a University of Texas poll. I have no interest in having an intelligent conversation with someone who can't do the same.

 

[03A3Sporter]

I think that most people here, the lefty trolling the thread being the exception, would lean toward Liberty even if they didn't fully understand it.

When he cited a UT poll that was the end of my line .

 

[RX-79G]

First off, this thread is not about slavery.

Secondly, you should go to school and get yourself an education. In the Constitution, the only reference to slavery was to give slavers a decade to get out of the business because the U.S. was not allowing future imports of slaves to come into this country. Additionally, by the time of the ratification of the Constitution, over half the states had already outlawed slavery. Slavery was never legalized in the United States where it was a states rights issue.

Are you kidding? 3/5ths rule, Article I section 9 and Article 4 section 2.

You can look this stuff up yourself.

 

[RX-79G]

I think that most people here, the lefty trolling the thread being the exception, would lean toward Liberty even if they didn't fully understand it.

Why is it that people like to ask questions as if they are capable of having a nuanced discussion or are actually seeking a broader perspective, when all they want are their biases confirmed?

Why not just ask Q what you should think and be done with any sort of conversation?

 

[The Resister]

You wanted to have this discussion, so I'm replying. I'm not in favor of gun control as much as I am DEEPLY concerned that magical thinking about how gun rights should work is a terrible strategy for their preservation.

Which "the law" was unequivocal? SCOTUS has waffled on interpreting 2A for the entire history of the US.

Posts # 84 and # 87 are pretty plain to me. In cases where there exists a precedent and the United States Supreme Court has not weighed in, the highest court's authority within a jurisdiction is mandatory authority and persuasive authority outside that jurisdiction. In a case where you have a federal appeals case, it is mandatory authority in its district. While other federal district courts of appeal are not required to apply the law the same way, their silence on the matter generally means they do not want to challenge the prevailing precedent.

You trolling this thread is not conducive to any discussion. The issue of gun Rights was not as nearly murky as it has been over the last few decades, with a few exceptions. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

 

[RX-79G]

Posts # 84 and # 87 are pretty plain to me. In cases where there exists a precedent and the United States Supreme Court has not weighed in, the highest court's authority within a jurisdiction is mandatory authority and persuasive authority outside that jurisdiction. In a case where you have a federal appeals case, it is mandatory authority in its district. While other federal district courts of appeal are not required to apply the law the same way, their silence on the matter generally means they do not want to challenge the prevailing precedent.

You trolling this thread is not conducive to any discussion. The issue of gun Rights was not as nearly murky as it has been over the last few decades, with a few exceptions. I can explain it to you, but I cannot understand it for you.

And what does the way appeals courts' function have to do with anything specific that I've said? Because I've said very little about courts.

 

[03A3Sporter]

The number of sales alone are a really good indicator of where support lies for new gun control laws.

Recently the president of Federal stated they made and sold more ammunition in 2020 than in the previous 95 years the company has been in existence.

Of course if you are one of the folks who believes that its just a handful of old men hanging out at Sportsman's or Academy buying every single round so they can resell it. Then of course there is mass support for gun control.

 

[The Resister]

Are you kidding? 3/5ths rule, Article I section 9 and Article 4 section 2.

You can look this stuff up yourself.

The 3 /5ths rule was not about slavery.

"Three-fifths compromise, compromise agreement between delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives."

Three-fifths compromise | History, Slavery, & Significance | Britannica

An agreement between slave states and non-slave states neither created, criminalized, nor legalized slavery. It was about taxes and representation since a lot of people did not have the PRIVILEGE of voting. OMG. You're derailing the thread over slavery??? Is your life that bad????????

 

[RX-79G]

My point in this thread was to ask questions about what gun owners think. You have given me more than enough information as to what you think. So, this is what I would say with respect to Heller.

The Right to keep and bear Arms was intended to be an absolute Right. The principle was upheld all the way up to the time of the Heller decision (despite many court decisions whittling down the Second Amendment to get to Heller). The word absolute is a synonym for unlimited. According to court precedents:

"By the "absolute rights" of individuals is meant those which are so in their primary and strictest sense, such as would belong to their persons merely in a state of nature, and which every man is entitled to enjoy, whether out of society or in it. The rights of personal security, of personal liberty, and private property do not depend upon the Constitution for their existence. They existed before the Constitution was made, or the government was organized. These are what are termed the "absolute rights" of individuals, which belong to them independently of all government, and which all governments which derive their power from the consent of the governed were instituted to protect." People v. Berberrich (N. Y.) 20 Barb. 224, 229; McCartee v. Orphan Asylum Soc. (N. Y.) 9 Cow. 437, 511, 513, 18 Am. Dec. 516; People v. Toynbee (N. Y.) 2 Parker, Cr. R. 329, 369, 370 (quoting 1 Bl. Comm. 123) - {1855}​

"The absolute rights of individuals may be resolved into the right of personal security, the right of personal liberty, and the right to acquire and enjoy property. These rights are declared to be natural, inherent, and unalienable." Atchison & N. R. Co. v. Baty, 6 Neb. 37, 40, 29 Am. Rep. 356 (1877)

Heller didn't uphold an "absolute right" but an "individual right". Those are very, very different.

 

[RX-79G]

The 3 /5ths rule was not about slavery.

"Three-fifths compromise, compromise agreement between delegates from the Northern and the Southern states at the United States Constitutional Convention (1787) that three-fifths of the slave population would be counted for determining direct taxation and representation in the House of Representatives."

Three-fifths compromise | History, Slavery, & Significance | Britannica

An agreement between slave states and non-slave states neither created, criminalized, nor legalized slavery. It was about taxes and representation since a lot of people did not have the PRIVILEGE of voting. OMG. You're derailing the thread over slavery??? Is your life that bad????????

If you don't want to talk about slavery, why do you keep making arguments about it in your thread?

But why do you think a section referencing "three-fifths of the slave population" isn't "about" slavery? Do you have have a different understanding of "about" than everyone else? The Constitution references slavery as a legal state. That's all.

 

[The Resister]

And what does the way appeals courts' function have to do with anything specific that I've said? Because I've said very little about courts.

You've probably said little about the courts because you do not understand how the courts work.. But, anyway back in 1803 in a case called Marbury v. Madison the United States Supreme Court unilaterally set itself up as the final arbiters of the law is. No longer would we have three separate and co - equal branches of government, but a judicial system that declared that once the courts interpret the law, then THAT is what the law is. The other two branches of government never challenged that unconstitutional act.

NOTHING gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to keep hearing the same legal issues over and over so the high Court plays word games and ascribes different words and interprets them, then applies those words to the same fact situation in order to legislate from the bench. Pretty soon a statute means 180 degrees opposite of what it says and the legislature intended. In the end, my court citations carry more weight than your opinions, fifty layman dictionaries, and all the statutes you can quote. The law means what the courts say it means.

 

[RX-79G]

You've probably said little about the courts because you do not understand how the courts work.. But, anyway back in 1803 in a case called Marbury v. Madison the United States Supreme Court unilaterally set itself up as the final arbiters of the law is. No longer would we have three separate and co - equal branches of government, but a judicial system that declared that once the courts interpret the law, then THAT is what the law is. The other two branches of government never challenged that unconstitutional act.

NOTHING gives the United States Supreme Court the authority to keep hearing the same legal issues over and over so the high Court plays word games and ascribes different words and interprets them, then applies those words to the same fact situation in order to legislate from the bench. Pretty soon a statute means 180 degrees opposite of what it says and the legislature intended. In the end, my court citations carry more weight than your opinions, fifty layman dictionaries, and all the statutes you can quote. The law means what the courts say it means.

So, where are you going with this? If SCOTUS has no authority, which law are you talking about? You're not making a cogent argument because there are so many laws and cases that pertain to the BoR.

 

[The Resister]

Heller didn't uphold an "absolute right" but an "individual right". Those are very, very different.

No shxxt Sherlock. What do you think my argument is predicated on? Are you even reading this thread? The United States Supreme Court never had the authority to declare that the Second Amendment was not absolute. That matter had been litigated by state courts and was finally decided in 1876 the first time the United States Supreme Court weighed in on the issue.

What the high Court did in Heller was to say that the Right was not "unlimited". There was absolutely NO doubt that the Right was absolute. Your unalienable Rights were declared to be absolute. In the Cruikshank holding in 1876 the United States Supreme Court declared that the Right to keep and bear Arms was not a Right granted by the Constitution and it (the Right) did not depend upon that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence. Put another way, the Right to keep and bear Arms was a pre-existing Right. That is also known as a unalienable Right.

Let me repeat myself. The courts had never defined the concept of unlimited in legal terminology. But, in layman terms the words absolute and unlimited are synonyms. So, uh, yeah... the Right was absolute AND unlimited. Since you didn't understand what I just said, you still have only half of the story as to how they changed the law 180 degrees. Honestly, I don't think you're quite up to this discussion - no offense.

 

[The Resister]

So, where are you going with this? If SCOTUS has no authority, which law are you talking about? You're not making a cogent argument because there are so many laws and cases that pertain to the BoR.

You should go back and read the posts that I've already made. If you don't understand the law, then you shouldn't complain about cogent arguments. I'm writing the responses at a fifth grade level.

 

[The Resister]

If you don't want to talk about slavery, why do you keep making arguments about it in your thread?

But why do you think a section referencing "three-fifths of the slave population" isn't "about" slavery? Do you have have a different understanding of "about" than everyone else? The Constitution references slavery as a legal state. That's all.

What dumbassery! No it does not. I'm not responding to this trolling any longer. This isn't about slavery - which was never legalized by the United States.

 

[RX-79G]

No shxxt Sherlock. What do you think my argument is predicated on? Are you even reading this thread? The United States Supreme Court never had the authority to declare that the Second Amendment was not absolute. That matter had been litigated by state courts and was finally decided in 1876 the first time the United States Supreme Court weighed in on the issue.

What the high Court did in Heller was to say that the Right was not "unlimited". There was absolutely NO doubt that the Right was absolute. Your unalienable Rights were declared to be absolute. In the Cruikshank holding in 1876 the United States Supreme Court declared that the Right to keep and bear Arms was not a Right granted by the Constitution and it (the Right) did not depend upon that instrument (the Constitution) for its existence. Put another way, the Right to keep and bear Arms was a pre-existing Right. That is also known as a unalienable Right.

Let me repeat myself. The courts had never defined the concept of unlimited in legal terminology. But, in layman terms the words absolute and unlimited are synonyms. So, uh, yeah... the Right was absolute AND unlimited. Since you didn't understand what I just said, you still have only half of the story as to how they changed the law 180 degrees. Honestly, I don't think you're quite up to this discussion - no offense.

I seriously doubt layman's guide to synonyms is pertinent. All of these terms are adjectives that are open to interpretation, which is why why they keep being argued. You think "inalienable" means "absolute", and you think "absolute" refers to BOTH who the law applies AND what arms it applies to. But since the language of 2A doesn't clarify if the right applies all the time, to everyone, for everything, "inalienable" isnt definitive. And clearly it was never interpreted that way by the slave owners that wrote it or by the officials that disarmed people as a matter of daily life in enforcing other laws.

So if this inalienable right has NEVER been applied "absolutely", what are you basing this extraordinary claim on? The power of the thesaurus?

 

[The Heretic]

If you don't want to believe polygamy is destabilizing, that's fine. Pick any law that regulates rights related practices: Free assembly during a plague, free speech with the necessity for state security, taxation of unrepresented minors and foreigners, whatever.

I didn't say it wasn't "destabilizing". I said I have not seen that you presented any evidence it was, merely assertions.

I also said, that we don't need to make laws against some practice just because we don't like it.

The reason we have government at all is that it is understood that it is impossible to have absolutely free expression, unlimited religious practice, completely free markets and that we actually want a government to set and enforce laws that stabilize society against breakdown and protect citizens from the coercion of power or the mob. Laws put the brakes on so people aren't constantly dying of listeria in the food or dealing with a market crash every other year. This is true for ALL aspects of society, not just the ones we find convenient.

Again, there is society and there is government - these are two different things.

Government is force, and it is not wise to enforce every societal norm via government.

 

[RX-79G]

I didn't say it wasn't "destabilizing". I said I have not seen that you presented any evidence it was, merely assertions.

I also said, that we don't need to make laws against some practice just because we don't like it.



Again, there is society and there is government - these are two different things.

Government is force, and it is not wise to enforce every societal norm via government.

Government is what you ask for when you live in a republic. Vote. Run for office. Sue the government. It's a service that works for you. That's why we had a revolution.

 

[The Resister]

I seriously doubt layman's guide to synonyms is pertinent. All of these terms are adjectives that are open to interpretation, which is why why they keep being argued. You think "inalienable" means "absolute", and you think "absolute" refers to BOTH who the law applies AND what arms it applies to. But since the language of 2A doesn't clarify if the right applies all the time, to everyone, for everything, "inalienable" isnt definitive. And clearly it was never interpreted that way by the slave owners that wrote it or by the officials that disarmed people as a matter of daily life in enforcing other laws.

So if this inalienable right has NEVER been applied "absolutely", what are you basing this extraordinary claim on? The power of the thesaurus?

I absolutely do NOT think that inalienable means absolute. You are not paying attention. I have already quoted and gave you the post number in this thread where absolute Rights were declared, by the federal courts, to be unalienable. We have NOT discussed inalienable rights except to show how they are different from unalienable. Are you even reading this thread?

Courts interpret words to their liking. Sometimes the word they ascribe a meaning to is very specific. It can and does differ from the dictionary meaning which has been shown. You need to focus on the facts before you.